Secondary benefits of family member participation in treatments for childhood disorders: A multilevel meta-analytic review.

IF 17.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Benjamin D Johnides, Charles M Borduin, Kaitlin M Sheerin, Sofie Kuppens
{"title":"Secondary benefits of family member participation in treatments for childhood disorders: A multilevel meta-analytic review.","authors":"Benjamin D Johnides, Charles M Borduin, Kaitlin M Sheerin, Sofie Kuppens","doi":"10.1037/bul0000462","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Family-based treatments provided around the world for children with mental health, physical health, and developmental disorders often convey secondary mental health benefits to caregivers and siblings who participate in those treatments. Yet, there are no systematic evaluations of these secondary benefits, suggesting that current estimates of the effectiveness of family treatments do not accurately represent the full scope of benefits to participants. In the present study, we use a three-level meta-analysis to summarize the secondary benefits for caregivers (<i>n</i> = 19,895) and siblings (<i>n</i> = 784) who participated in the treatment of a child family member. Results from 128 studies across many countries reveal multiple strengths in the research literature, including frequent use of standardized treatments, random assignment of participants to treatment conditions, and comparison of family-based treatments to usual services. This meta-analysis examines 412 effect sizes and shows that family-based treatments produce small but statistically significant secondary benefits (<i>d</i> = 0.25) compared to individually focused treatments and conditions. In addition, the magnitude of these secondary benefits is relatively consistent across a range of possible moderators, including characteristics of the participants, clinical interventions, study methods, and measures. The only significant moderator of family-based treatments is caregiver gender, such that male caregivers report fewer secondary benefits than do female caregivers. Our findings suggest that there is a pressing need for researchers to routinely measure secondary benefits in studies evaluating family-based treatments of childhood disorders. Furthermore, researchers of these treatments should report family structure, key demographic information (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning families), and cultural values (e.g., familismo) in their studies. Moreover, administrators, policymakers, and treatment providers would do well to consider the secondary benefits and cost savings of interventions that are delivered to families of children with a wide range of disorders. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"151 1","pages":"1-32"},"PeriodicalIF":17.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000462","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Family-based treatments provided around the world for children with mental health, physical health, and developmental disorders often convey secondary mental health benefits to caregivers and siblings who participate in those treatments. Yet, there are no systematic evaluations of these secondary benefits, suggesting that current estimates of the effectiveness of family treatments do not accurately represent the full scope of benefits to participants. In the present study, we use a three-level meta-analysis to summarize the secondary benefits for caregivers (n = 19,895) and siblings (n = 784) who participated in the treatment of a child family member. Results from 128 studies across many countries reveal multiple strengths in the research literature, including frequent use of standardized treatments, random assignment of participants to treatment conditions, and comparison of family-based treatments to usual services. This meta-analysis examines 412 effect sizes and shows that family-based treatments produce small but statistically significant secondary benefits (d = 0.25) compared to individually focused treatments and conditions. In addition, the magnitude of these secondary benefits is relatively consistent across a range of possible moderators, including characteristics of the participants, clinical interventions, study methods, and measures. The only significant moderator of family-based treatments is caregiver gender, such that male caregivers report fewer secondary benefits than do female caregivers. Our findings suggest that there is a pressing need for researchers to routinely measure secondary benefits in studies evaluating family-based treatments of childhood disorders. Furthermore, researchers of these treatments should report family structure, key demographic information (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning families), and cultural values (e.g., familismo) in their studies. Moreover, administrators, policymakers, and treatment providers would do well to consider the secondary benefits and cost savings of interventions that are delivered to families of children with a wide range of disorders. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

家庭成员参与儿童疾病治疗的次要益处:一项多水平荟萃分析综述。
世界各地为患有精神健康、身体健康和发育障碍的儿童提供的以家庭为基础的治疗,往往会给参加这些治疗的照顾者和兄弟姐妹带来次要的精神健康益处。然而,没有对这些次要益处进行系统的评估,这表明目前对家庭治疗有效性的估计并不能准确地代表参与者的全部益处。在本研究中,我们使用三水平荟萃分析来总结参加儿童家庭成员治疗的照顾者(n = 19,895)和兄弟姐妹(n = 784)的次要益处。来自许多国家的128项研究的结果揭示了研究文献中的多重优势,包括经常使用标准化治疗,随机分配参与者的治疗条件,以及将基于家庭的治疗与常规服务进行比较。这项荟萃分析检查了412个效应大小,表明与以个人为重点的治疗和条件相比,以家庭为基础的治疗产生了小但统计上显著的次要益处(d = 0.25)。此外,这些次要益处的大小在一系列可能的调节因素中相对一致,包括参与者的特征、临床干预、研究方法和措施。家庭治疗的唯一显著调节因素是照顾者的性别,因此男性照顾者报告的次要益处比女性照顾者少。我们的研究结果表明,研究人员迫切需要在评估以家庭为基础的儿童疾病治疗的研究中常规测量次要益处。此外,这些治疗的研究人员应该在他们的研究中报告家庭结构、关键人口统计信息(如女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、跨性别、酷儿或质疑家庭)和文化价值观(如家庭主义)。此外,管理人员、政策制定者和治疗提供者应该好好考虑向患有各种疾病的儿童家庭提供干预措施的次要效益和成本节约。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological bulletin
Psychological bulletin 医学-心理学
CiteScore
33.60
自引率
0.90%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology. Research syntheses seek to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses. A research synthesis typically presents the authors' assessments: -of the state of knowledge concerning the relations of interest; -of critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses in past research; -of important issues that research has left unresolved, thereby directing future research so it can yield a maximum amount of new information.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信