Kristin M. Hawley

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.

Youth versus parent working alliance in usual clinical care: distinctive associations with retention, satisfaction, and treatment outcome.

We investigated associations between both youth–therapist and parent–therapist alliances and retention, satisfaction, and symptom improvement among 65 youth and their parents receiving usual community-based outpatient mental health services. Parent (but not youth) alliance was significantly related to more frequent family participation, less frequent cancellations and no-shows, and greater therapist concurrence with termination decision. In contrast, youth (but not parent) alliance was significantly related to both youth and parent reports of symptom improvement. Youth and parent alliance were each significantly related to their satisfaction with services. Findings suggest that youth and parent alliance may play important but distinctive roles in the processes and outcomes of usual 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.

Developmental factors in the treatment of adolescents.

Most empirically supported interventions for adolescent mental health problems are either downward adaptations of adult treatments or upward adaptations of child treatments. Although these treatments show respectable effects with teens, a review of the outcome research reveals significant gaps. both in coverage of adolescent conditions and problems (e.g., eating disorders, suicidality) and in attention to the biological, psychological, and social dimensions of adolescent development. The authors critique the field, propose a biopsychosocial framework for the development of dysfunction and intervention, and discuss ways the developmental literature can and cannot inform intervention and research. A long-term goal is an array of developmentally tailored treatments that are effective with clinically referred teens and an enriched understanding of when, how, and why the treatments work.

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.

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,

Psychometric Properties of the Therapeutic Alliance Scale for Caregivers and Parents

1,

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

2,

Targeting binge eating through components of dialectical behavior therapy: preliminary outcomes for individually supported diary card self-monitoring versus group-based DBT.

5) on response to a 7-page self-report survey of mental health assessment and treatment practices in a sample of 500 clinicians from the 5 largest professional guilds. Noncontingent monetary incentives significantly increased response rate compared to no incentive across all disciplines. Noncontingent monetary incentives are discussed as a cost-effective method for increasing survey response rate among mental health clinicians.

Adapted Group‐Based Dialectical Behaviour Therapy for Binge Eating in a Practicing Clinic: Clinical Outcomes and Attrition

This study examined the psychometric properties of the Therapeutic Alliance Scale for Caregivers and Parents (TASCP) in a sample of 209 caregivers whose children (4-13 years of age) presented with disruptive behavior problems to a publicly funded outpatient mental health clinic in San Diego County. Information about therapeutic alliance was collected from caregivers, children, and their therapists across the course of therapy (up to 16 months). Results support the reliability, temporal stability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of scores on the TASCP. The multilevel factor structure of this new measure was consistent with the parallel child-report version, with 2 within-level factors and 1 between-level factor. Furthermore, predictive validity was strong, with stronger caregiver-reported alliance associated with less treatment dropout, more sessions attended, and greater satisfaction with perceived improvement.