Do Parents Enhance Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Youth Anxiety? An Overview of Systematic Reviews Over Time.

IF 5.5 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1007/s10567-023-00436-5
S Byrne, V Cobham, M Richardson, K Imuta
{"title":"Do Parents Enhance Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Youth Anxiety? An Overview of Systematic Reviews Over Time.","authors":"S Byrne,&nbsp;V Cobham,&nbsp;M Richardson,&nbsp;K Imuta","doi":"10.1007/s10567-023-00436-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The last 20 years has seen debate regarding the merits of involving parents in cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for youth anxiety played out across systematic reviews which have high impact. These reviews examined varying treatment formats in relation to parent involvement, including youth only CBT (Y-CBT), parent only CBT (P-CBT) and family CBT (youth and parent; F-CBT). This is a novel overview of systematic reviews examining evidence for parental involvement in CBT for youth anxiety over the period this was studied. Two independent coders systematically searched for studies in medical and psychological databases using the categories \"Review\", \"Youth\", \"Anxiety\", \"Cognitive Behavior Therapy\" and \"Parent/Family\". Of the 2,189 unique articles identified, there were 25 systematic reviews since 2005 which compared the effects of CBT for youth anxiety with varying parent involvement. Despite systematically studying the same phenomenon, the reviews were heterogeneous in outcome, design, inclusion criteria and often had methodological limitations. Of the 25 reviews, 21 found no difference between formats and 22 reviews were considered inconclusive. Yet while there were typically no statistical differences, consistent patterns in the direction of effects were detected over time. P-CBT was less effective than other formats, suggesting the importance of directly treating anxious youths. Early reviews favored F-CBT over Y-CBT, however, later reviews did not show this trend. We consider the effects of moderators including exposure therapy, long-term outcomes and the child's age. We consider how to manage heterogeneity in primary studies and reviews to better detect treatment differences where they exist.Trial registration This protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework: osf.io/2u58t.</p>","PeriodicalId":51399,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10465628/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-023-00436-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The last 20 years has seen debate regarding the merits of involving parents in cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for youth anxiety played out across systematic reviews which have high impact. These reviews examined varying treatment formats in relation to parent involvement, including youth only CBT (Y-CBT), parent only CBT (P-CBT) and family CBT (youth and parent; F-CBT). This is a novel overview of systematic reviews examining evidence for parental involvement in CBT for youth anxiety over the period this was studied. Two independent coders systematically searched for studies in medical and psychological databases using the categories "Review", "Youth", "Anxiety", "Cognitive Behavior Therapy" and "Parent/Family". Of the 2,189 unique articles identified, there were 25 systematic reviews since 2005 which compared the effects of CBT for youth anxiety with varying parent involvement. Despite systematically studying the same phenomenon, the reviews were heterogeneous in outcome, design, inclusion criteria and often had methodological limitations. Of the 25 reviews, 21 found no difference between formats and 22 reviews were considered inconclusive. Yet while there were typically no statistical differences, consistent patterns in the direction of effects were detected over time. P-CBT was less effective than other formats, suggesting the importance of directly treating anxious youths. Early reviews favored F-CBT over Y-CBT, however, later reviews did not show this trend. We consider the effects of moderators including exposure therapy, long-term outcomes and the child's age. We consider how to manage heterogeneity in primary studies and reviews to better detect treatment differences where they exist.Trial registration This protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework: osf.io/2u58t.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
父母加强认知行为治疗青少年焦虑吗?随着时间的推移,系统评价的概述。
在过去的20年里,关于让父母参与认知行为疗法(CBT)治疗青少年焦虑症的优点的争论在系统评价中得到了体现,这些评价具有很高的影响力。这些综述研究了与父母参与相关的不同治疗形式,包括仅青少年CBT (Y-CBT)、仅父母CBT (P-CBT)和家庭CBT(青少年和父母;F-CBT)。这是一篇新颖的系统综述,研究了在研究期间父母参与CBT治疗青少年焦虑的证据。两名独立编码员系统地在医学和心理学数据库中搜索研究,分类为"回顾"、"青年"、"焦虑"、"认知行为治疗"和"父母/家庭"。在已确定的2189篇独特的文章中,自2005年以来,有25篇系统综述比较了CBT在不同父母参与下对青少年焦虑的影响。尽管系统地研究了相同的现象,但这些综述在结果、设计、纳入标准等方面存在异质性,而且常常存在方法学上的局限性。在25篇评论中,21篇没有发现格式之间的差异,22篇评论被认为是不确定的。然而,虽然通常没有统计差异,但随着时间的推移,在影响方向上发现了一致的模式。P-CBT不如其他形式有效,提示直接治疗焦虑青少年的重要性。早期的评论倾向于F-CBT而不是Y-CBT,然而,后来的评论并没有显示出这种趋势。我们考虑了调节因素的影响,包括暴露疗法、长期结果和儿童的年龄。我们考虑如何在初步研究和综述中管理异质性,以便更好地发现存在的治疗差异。本协议在开放科学框架上注册:osf.io/2u58t。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: Editors-in-Chief: Dr. Ronald J. Prinz, University of South Carolina and Dr. Thomas H. Ollendick, Virginia Polytechnic Institute Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal that provides an international, interdisciplinary forum in which important and new developments in this field are identified and in-depth reviews on current thought and practices are published. The Journal publishes original research reviews, conceptual and theoretical papers, and related work in the broad area of the behavioral sciences that pertains to infants, children, adolescents, and families. Contributions originate from a wide array of disciplines including, but not limited to, psychology (e.g., clinical, community, developmental, family, school), medicine (e.g., family practice, pediatrics, psychiatry), public health, social work, and education. Topical content includes science and application and covers facets of etiology, assessment, description, treatment and intervention, prevention, methodology, and public policy. Submissions are by invitation only and undergo peer review. The Editors, in consultation with the Editorial Board, invite highly qualified experts to contribute original papers on topics of timely interest and significance.
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Parent Socialization of Negative Affect in Clinical Child Samples: Relations to Youth Emotion Regulation Abilities A Systematic Review of Parental Involvement in Digital Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Interventions for Child Anxiety Implementation of Measurement-Based Care in Mental Health Service Settings for Youth: A Systematic Review. Digital Location Tracking of Children and Adolescents: A Theoretical Framework and Review. The Effectiveness of Trauma-Informed Parenting Programs for Traumatized Parents and Their Components: A Meta-Analytic Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1