Moderators of cognitive and behaviour therapies for prevention and treatment of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
{"title":"Moderators of cognitive and behaviour therapies for prevention and treatment of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Siyu Zhou, Cathy Creswell, Urška Košir, Tessa Reardon","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous studies have indicated wide variation in the effectiveness of cognitive and behaviour therapies (CBTs) for preventing and treating anxiety disorders in children and adolescents, indicating the presence of moderators influencing outcomes. This meta-analysis investigated whether sample characteristics (child age, child baseline anxiety levels, parental baseline anxiety levels) and intervention characteristics (intervention duration, facilitator contact time, facilitator background, delivery formats, parental involvement) moderate the effectiveness of CBTs for universal prevention, targeted prevention, and treatment of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. We identified 86 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of 98 CBTs versus non-active controls. Effect sizes were the post-intervention standardized mean difference of children's broad anxiety symptoms between CBT and non-active controls. Moderation analyses were conducted separately on child- and parent-reported outcomes using meta-regression and subgroup analyses. We found some evidence for (1) a moderating role of child age, facilitator background, and parental involvement on the effectiveness of CBTs for universal prevention; (2) a moderating role of child age and intervention duration on the effectiveness of CBTs for targeted prevention; (3) a moderating role of child age, facilitator contact time, and delivery formats on the effectiveness of CBTs for treatment. There was no evidence for a moderating role of child baseline anxiety levels on the effectiveness of CBTs for universal/targeted prevention or treatment. The moderating role of parental baseline anxiety levels and its potential interaction with parental involvement was not tested given the limited available data. Although these findings provide insights into the question of what works for whom, they should be interpreted cautiously given the limited available data, wide variation in outcomes, potential confounders, and discrepancies between child- and parent-reported outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"116 ","pages":"102548"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102548","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
Previous studies have indicated wide variation in the effectiveness of cognitive and behaviour therapies (CBTs) for preventing and treating anxiety disorders in children and adolescents, indicating the presence of moderators influencing outcomes. This meta-analysis investigated whether sample characteristics (child age, child baseline anxiety levels, parental baseline anxiety levels) and intervention characteristics (intervention duration, facilitator contact time, facilitator background, delivery formats, parental involvement) moderate the effectiveness of CBTs for universal prevention, targeted prevention, and treatment of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. We identified 86 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of 98 CBTs versus non-active controls. Effect sizes were the post-intervention standardized mean difference of children's broad anxiety symptoms between CBT and non-active controls. Moderation analyses were conducted separately on child- and parent-reported outcomes using meta-regression and subgroup analyses. We found some evidence for (1) a moderating role of child age, facilitator background, and parental involvement on the effectiveness of CBTs for universal prevention; (2) a moderating role of child age and intervention duration on the effectiveness of CBTs for targeted prevention; (3) a moderating role of child age, facilitator contact time, and delivery formats on the effectiveness of CBTs for treatment. There was no evidence for a moderating role of child baseline anxiety levels on the effectiveness of CBTs for universal/targeted prevention or treatment. The moderating role of parental baseline anxiety levels and its potential interaction with parental involvement was not tested given the limited available data. Although these findings provide insights into the question of what works for whom, they should be interpreted cautiously given the limited available data, wide variation in outcomes, potential confounders, and discrepancies between child- and parent-reported outcomes.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology.
While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
