Amanda Jensen-Doss

Evidence-Based Youth Psychotherapies Versus Usual Clinical Care: A Meta-Analysis of Direct Comparisons.

In the debate over evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for youth, one question is central: Do EBTs produce better outcomes than the usual interventions employed in clinical care? The authors addressed this question through a meta-analysis of 32 randomized trials that directly compared EBTs with usual care. EBTs outperformed usual care. Effects fell within the small to medium range at posttreatment, increasing somewhat at follow-up. EBT superiority was not reduced by high levels of youth severity or by inclusion of minority youths. The findings underscore a need for improved study designs and detailed treatment descriptions. In the future, the EBT versus usual care genre can inform the search for the most effective interventions and guide treatment selection in clinical care.

Performance of Evidence-Based Youth Psychotherapies Compared With Usual Clinical Care A Multilevel Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE Research across more than 4 decades has produced numerous empirically tested evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) for psychopathology in children and adolescents. The EBPs were developed to improve on usual clinical interventions. Advocates argue that the EBPs should replace usual care, but this assumes that EBPs produce better outcomes than usual care. OBJECTIVE To determine whether EBPs do in fact produce better outcomes than usual care in youth psychotherapy. We performed a meta-analysis of 52 randomized trials directly comparing EBPs with usual care. Analyses assessed the overall effect of EBPs vs usual care and candidate moderators; we used multilevel analysis to address the dependency among effect sizes (ES) that is common but typically unaddressed in psychotherapy syntheses. DATA SOURCES We searched the PubMed, PsychINFO, and Dissertation Abstracts International databases for studies from January 1, 1960, through December 31, 2010. STUDY SELECTION We identified 507 randomized youth psychotherapy trials. Of these, the 52 studies that compared EBPs with usual care were included in the meta-analysis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Sixteen variables (participant, treatment, outcome, and study characteristics) were extracted from studies, and ESs were calculated for all comparisons of EBP vs usual care. We used an extension of the commonly used random-effects meta-analytic model to obtain an overall estimate of the difference between EBP and usual care while accounting for the dependency among ESs. We then fitted a 3-level mixed-effects model to identify moderators that might explain variation in ESs within and between studies by adding study or ES characteristics as fixed predictors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcomes of our meta-analysis were mean ES estimates across all studies and for levels of candidate moderators. These ES values were based on measures of symptoms, functioning, and other outcomes assessed within the 52 randomized trials. RESULTS Evidence-based psychotherapies outperformed usual care. Mean ES was 0.29; the probability was 58% that a randomly selected youth would have a better outcome after EBP than a randomly selected youth after receiving usual care. The following 3 variables moderated treatment benefit: ESs decreased for studies conducted outside North America, for studies in which all participants were impaired enough to qualify for diagnoses, and for outcomes reported by informants other than the youths and parents in therapy. For certain key groups (eg, studies of clinically referred samples and youths with diagnoses), significant EBP effects were not demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Evidence-based psychotherapies outperform usual care, but the EBP advantage is modest and moderated by youth, location, and assessment characteristics. The EBPs have room for improvement in the magnitude and range of their benefit relative to usual clinical care.

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy versus Usual Clinical Care for Youth Depression: An Initial Test of Transportability to Community Clinics and Clinicians

Community clinic therapists were randomized to (a) brief training and supervision in cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for youth depression or (b) usual care (UC). The therapists treated 57 youths (56% girls), ages 8-15, of whom 33% were Caucasian, 26% were African American, and 26% were Latino/Latina. Most youths were from low-income families and all had Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) depressive disorders (plus multiple comorbidities). All youths were randomized to CBT or UC and treated until normal termination. Session coding showed more use of CBT by CBT therapists and more psychodynamic and family approaches by UC therapists. At posttreatment, depression symptom measures were at subclinical levels, and 75% of youths had no remaining depressive disorder, but CBT and UC groups did not differ on these outcomes. However, compared with UC, CBT was (a) briefer (24 vs. 39 weeks), (b) superior in parent-rated therapeutic alliance, (c) less likely to require additional services (including all psychotropics combined and depression medication in particular), and (d) less costly. The findings showed advantages for CBT in parent engagement, reduced use of medication and other services, overall cost, and possibly speed of improvement--a hypothesis that warrants testing in future research.

Understanding Barriers to Evidence-Based Assessment: Clinician Attitudes toward Standardized Assessment Tools.

In an era of evidence-based practice, why are clinicians not typically engaged in evidence-based assessment? To begin to understand this issue, a national multidisciplinary survey was conducted to examine clinician attitudes toward standardized assessment tools. There were 1,442 child clinicians who provided opinions about the psychometric qualities of these tools, their benefit over clinical judgment alone, and their practicality. Doctoral-level clinicians and psychologists expressed more positive ratings in all three domains than masters-level clinicians and nonpsychologists, respectively, although only the disciplinary differences remained significant when predictors were examined simultaneously. All three attitude scales were predictive of standardized assessment tool use, although practical concerns were the strongest and only independent predictor of use.

Diagnostic agreement predicts treatment process and outcomes in youth mental health clinics.

Several studies have documented low rates of agreement between clinician- and researcher-generated diagnoses. However, little is known about whether this lack of agreement has implications for the processes and outcomes of subsequent treatment. To study this possibility, the authors used diagnostic agreement to predict therapy engagement and outcomes for 197 youths treated in 5 community mental health clinics. Diagnostic agreement predicted better therapy engagement, with the agree group having fewer therapy no-shows and cancellations and a decreased likelihood of therapy dropout. Additionally, support for a link between agreement and treatment outcomes was found, as the agree group obtained larger reductions in parent-reported internalizing problems during treatment. These findings suggest that diagnostic accuracy may be an important precursor to successful treatment and highlight the importance of future research to find ways to incorporate standardized diagnostic procedures into clinical care settings.

What five decades of research tells us about the effects of youth psychological therapy: A multilevel meta-analysis and implications for science and practice

Across 5 decades, hundreds of randomized trials have tested psychological therapies for youth internalizing (anxiety, depression) and externalizing (misconduct, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder) disorders and problems. Since the last broad-based youth meta-analysis in 1995, the number of trials has almost tripled and data-analytic methods have been refined. We applied these methods to the expanded study pool (447 studies; 30,431 youths), synthesizing 50 years of findings and identifying implications for research and practice. We assessed overall effect size (ES) and moderator effects using multilevel modeling to address ES dependency that is common, but typically not modeled, in meta-analyses. Mean posttreatment ES was 0.46; the probability that a youth in the treatment condition would fare better than a youth in the control condition was 63%. Effects varied according to multiple moderators, including the problem targeted in treatment: Mean ES at posttreatment was strongest for anxiety (0.61), weakest for depression (0.29), and nonsignificant for multiproblem treatment (0.15). ESs differed across control conditions, with “usual care” emerging as a potent comparison condition, and across informants, highlighting the need to obtain and integrate multiple perspectives on outcome. Effects of therapy type varied by informant; only youth-focused behavioral therapies (including cognitive-behavioral therapy) showed similar and robust effects across youth, parent, and teacher reports. Effects did not differ for Caucasian versus minority samples, but more diverse samples are needed. The findings underscore the benefits of psychological treatments as well as the need for improved therapies and more representative, informative, and rigorous intervention science.

Workshop-based training in trauma-focused CBT: an in-depth analysis of impact on provider practices.

Despite evidence that more intensive methods are more effective, many clinical settings continue to train practitioners using workshops. To more fully understand the strengths and limitations of workshops, the present investigation studied changes in practitioner behavior following a workshop in trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy (TF-CBT). A chart review indicated no changes in TF-CBT use following the training, although therapists indicated that CBT was the most effective treatment for traumatized youths and was their primary approach to treating trauma. Analysis of client factors indicated weak relationships between technique use and treatment need. Implications of these findings for future training efforts are discussed.

Do Noncontingent Incentives Increase Survey Response Rates among Mental Health Providers? A Randomized Trial Comparison

Surveys can be a useful tool for mental health services research. Unfortunately, clinicians typically show low response rates to surveys. To determine whether noncontingent incentives would increase responses among clinicians, we compared no incentive versus four incentives (mood magnet,

Computer-assisted therapies: examination of therapist-level barriers to their use.

1,

Understanding Clinicians’ Diagnostic Practices: Attitudes Toward the Utility of Diagnosis and Standardized Diagnostic Tools

2,