LAUSR

Objectives: Childhood mental illness is an ongoing public health crisis which is accompanied by an increase in antidepressant (i.e., serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) use in children. Recent evidence highlighting the cultural differences in the utilization, efficacy, and tolerability of antidepressants in children underscores the need for diverse samples in studies examining antidepressant use. Furthermore, the American Psychological Association in recent years has emphasized the importance of including participants from diverse backgrounds in research studies, including investigations of medication efficacy. The present study, therefore, examined the demographic composition of samples used and reported in antidepressant efficacy and tolerability studies with children and adolescents experiencing anxiety and/or depression in the last decade. Methods: A systematic literature review utilizing two databases was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In line with the extant literature, antidepressants were operationalized as Sertraline, Duloxetine, Escitalopram, Fluoxetine, and Fluvoxamine. Results: Out of the 11 articles included in this review, 71% reported having a primarily adolescent sample (i.e., over 50% of the sample was 12 years or older). In addition, all studies omitted any transgender, genderqueer, or gender-nonconforming demographics, and one study omitted all racial demographic information. While 64% of studies only partially reported racial demographic information, 36% of studies omitted ethnicity demographics altogether. Conclusions: The present study addresses a gap in the literature by supporting a lack of diversity in studies examining antidepressant use in children and adolescents. Furthermore, it underscores the importance of future studies using a more diverse and representative sample. Limitations of the present study included limited generalizability and the lack of independent and blind reviewer process. Possible explanations for the lack of inclusion and suggestions on how to address these disparities are discussed.