In this episode of the Mind the Kids podcast, host Mark Tebbs sits down with Emma Butler — an occupational therapist with over 20 years of clinical experience in neonates and paediatrics — to explore one of the most pressing questions in child mental health research: can we predict poor mental health in childhood as early as birth?

Emma, a PhD researcher working across multiple institutions including Trinity College Dublin, the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, and University College Cork, shares findings from her groundbreaking work using the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) — one of the world's leading pregnancy cohort studies — to develop a multivariable prediction model for childhood mental health outcomes at age seven.

With children's mental health rising sharply across Europe and England — from one in eleven in 2017 to one in five by 2023 — Emma makes the case for why a preventative, early intervention approach is not just desirable but essential. The conversation covers the growing global burden of childhood mental health disorders, the critical difference between prediction and causation in research, and why psychosocial and socioeconomic factors consistently emerge as the strongest predictors of later poor mental health.

Emma also unpacks a striking finding from her PhD: that fine motor skills measured at just 18 months can predict mental health outcomes at age seven — a discovery with significant implications for early childhood development and infant mental health services.

From the ethics of predictive modelling and the risk of labelling children, to what a tiered, community-based early intervention system could look like in practice, this episode offers a rich, evidence-based discussion for clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and anyone passionate about improving outcomes for children and young people.

Read the paper 'Predicting 7-year-olds mental health in the perinatal period: Development and internal validation of a multivariable model using the prospective ALSPAC cohort' https://doi.org/10.1002/jcv2.70091
Emma Butler, Michelle Spirtos, Linda M. O’Keeffe, Mary Clarke
First published: 03 January 2026

Get a free CPD/CME certificate for listening to this podcast by registering for a FREE ACAMH Learn account at https://bit.ly/4fF4BBW

Visit https://www.acamh.org
Facebook and LinkedIn search / ACAMH
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/assoc.camh
Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/acamh.bsky.social
X https://x.com/acamh

In this episode of the Mind the Kids podcast, we explore how adolescents learn from rewards and what this means for depression risk and mental health outcomes. Drawing on longitudinal research from the Temple Adolescent Development Study, our guest breaks down the complex science of reward processing, anhedonia, and reinforcement learning in young people.

Anhedonia—defined as a reduced ability to experience pleasure—is a key symptom across multiple mental health conditions, including depression, and is linked to poorer long-term outcomes. But what actually drives these changes in reward responsiveness during adolescence? And how do differences in learning from rewards and punishments shape emotional development?

We discuss cutting-edge findings using the Iowa Gambling Task and computational modelling to better understand how reward learning evolves between ages 9 and 17. The conversation highlights how adolescents may fine-tune their learning strategies over time, and why subtle differences—particularly in young people at higher risk of depression due to parental history—could have meaningful implications.

This episode is essential listening for clinicians, researchers, and anyone interested in child and adolescent mental health, offering evidence-based insights into how reward systems develop and how they may inform early identification and intervention strategies.

Read the JCPP paper 'Reward-specific learning parameters change across normative adolescent development and are blunted in youth with high risk for depression' at https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.70086
Holly Sullivan-Toole, Jeremy M. Haynes, Helen Schmidt, Bart Larsen, Nathaniel Haines, Thomas M. Olino
First published: 22 December 2025

Get a free CPD/CME certificate for listening to this podcast by registering for a FREE ACAMH Learn account at https://bit.ly/4fF4BBW

Visit https://www.acamh.org
Facebook and LinkedIn search / ACAMH
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/assoc.camh
Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/acamh.bsky.social
X https://x.com/acamh

In this episode of Mind the Kids, the podcast from the Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health (ACAMH), host Clara Faria — academic clinical fellow in child psychiatry — is joined by Dr. Karolin Krause, clinical epidemiologist and measurement scientist at the Center for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Université Paris Cité.

Dr. Krause shares findings from her recently published paper in JCPP, the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. The paper — a scoping umbrella review — systematically maps 80 instruments used to measure life impact in youth mental health research across three interconnected domains: functioning, quality of life, and well-being. Despite major international core outcome set initiatives — including ICHOM and In-ROADS — consistently identifying functioning and quality of life as critical outcomes alongside symptoms, no consensus exists on which instruments to use, and the landscape remains highly fragmented.

The rationale runs deeper than methodology. Outcomes measurement in child and adolescent mental health is foundational to evidence-based, person-centred care. Symptom severity and life impact do not always move in step — the DSM-5 itself requires both symptom threshold and clinically significant impairment for diagnosis, yet instruments frequently conflate the two constructs, making it difficult to track which improves first in treatment and whether the gains that matter most to young people are being captured. Across the 80 instruments identified, the review found wide variation in informant type, length, age range, and developmental setting. More than a quarter were classified differently across reviews — a consequence of unclear construct definitions, limited co-production with young people, and what the paper terms "jingle-jangle fallacies." A notable gap emerges for the 19–24 age group navigating the transition from CAMHS to adult services, for whom no instrument has been specifically validated.

Clara and Karolin discuss why functioning and life impact deserve dedicated measurement separate from symptom scales, the case for self-report over adult-observer-dominated measures, the trade-offs of multi-informant approaches, and a Wellcome-funded project focused on the development of an evidence synthesis platform for patient-reported outcome measure selection aimed at making evidence-based instrument choice more accessible to researchers worldwide”

A must-listen for anyone working in child and adolescent mental health, CAMHS outcomes, youth mental health outcomes measurement, functioning measures, quality of life in children and young people, patient-reported outcome measures, or routine outcome measurement in research and practice.

The the JCPP paper 'Research Review: Measuring life impact of youth mental health difficulties: scoping umbrella review of 80 instruments'
Karolin R. Krause, Sophie Chung, Christiane Konstantopoulos, Terri Rodak, Ana Calderón, Nichol Edwards Snagg, Kristin Cleverley, Nancy J. Butcher, Giovanni A. Salum, Kathleen R. Merikangas, Peter Szatmari
First published: 11 March 2026
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.70134

Get a free CPD/CME certificate for listening to this podcast by registering for a FREE ACAMH Learn account at https://bit.ly/4fF4BBW

Visit https://www.acamh.org
Facebook and LinkedIn search / ACAMH
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/assoc.camh
Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/acamh.bsky.social
X https://x.com/acamh