{"title":"Clinical decision-making in the treatment of children and adolescents with anxiety disorders in Australia.","authors":"Lizél-Antoinette Bertie, Jennifer L Hudson","doi":"10.1080/00049530.2025.2470459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Recent evidence that few help-seeking children and adolescents receive evidence-based care for anxiety in Australia highlighted the need for an increased understanding of clinical decision-making in this field. This article reports on a survey that explored the perspective of clinicians regarding the care they provide for children and adolescents with anxiety disorders, and the factors influencing this decision-making process. Underlying decision-making constructs were investigated, including theoretical orientation, assessment, treatment planning and techniques, attitudes towards research and sources used to support clinical practice. Willingness to engage with clinical decision support was also examined.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A sample of Australian mental health practitioners (<i>n</i> = 42) completed an online survey investigating clinical treatment decisions and the principles underlying their choices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Generally, clinicians subscribe to more than one theoretical orientation, with a majority incorporating a CBT approach. Clinical assessment and treatment formulation processes aligned with evidence-based practices and recommendations. Most clinicians reported high esteem for research to inform both their theoretical approach and clinical practice, and most respondents indicated interest in user-testing a decision support tool.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In contrast to earlier research, Australian clinicians self-report routine employment of evidence-based practices to guide clinical assessment, treatment formulation and treatment delivery in their practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":8871,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Psychology","volume":"77 1","pages":"2470459"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12218447/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2025.2470459","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Recent evidence that few help-seeking children and adolescents receive evidence-based care for anxiety in Australia highlighted the need for an increased understanding of clinical decision-making in this field. This article reports on a survey that explored the perspective of clinicians regarding the care they provide for children and adolescents with anxiety disorders, and the factors influencing this decision-making process. Underlying decision-making constructs were investigated, including theoretical orientation, assessment, treatment planning and techniques, attitudes towards research and sources used to support clinical practice. Willingness to engage with clinical decision support was also examined.
Method: A sample of Australian mental health practitioners (n = 42) completed an online survey investigating clinical treatment decisions and the principles underlying their choices.
Results: Generally, clinicians subscribe to more than one theoretical orientation, with a majority incorporating a CBT approach. Clinical assessment and treatment formulation processes aligned with evidence-based practices and recommendations. Most clinicians reported high esteem for research to inform both their theoretical approach and clinical practice, and most respondents indicated interest in user-testing a decision support tool.
Conclusions: In contrast to earlier research, Australian clinicians self-report routine employment of evidence-based practices to guide clinical assessment, treatment formulation and treatment delivery in their practices.
期刊介绍:
Australian Journal of Psychology is the premier scientific journal of the Australian Psychological Society. It covers the entire spectrum of psychological research and receives articles on all topics within the broad scope of the discipline. The journal publishes high quality peer-reviewed articles with reviewers and associate editors providing detailed assistance to authors to reach publication. The journal publishes reports of experimental and survey studies, including reports of qualitative investigations, on pure and applied topics in the field of psychology. Articles on clinical psychology or on the professional concerns of applied psychology should be submitted to our sister journals, Australian Psychologist or Clinical Psychologist. The journal publishes occasional reviews of specific topics, theoretical pieces and commentaries on methodological issues. There are also solicited book reviews and comments Annual special issues devoted to a single topic, and guest edited by a specialist editor, are published. The journal regards itself as international in vision and will accept submissions from psychologists in all countries.