使用优势和困难问卷确定转诊至CAMHS的受照顾儿童的治疗需求

Q2 Social Sciences
Hannah Wright, D. Wellsted, Jacqui Gratton, S. Besser, N. Midgley
{"title":"使用优势和困难问卷确定转诊至CAMHS的受照顾儿童的治疗需求","authors":"Hannah Wright, D. Wellsted, Jacqui Gratton, S. Besser, N. Midgley","doi":"10.1177/2516103218817555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In England and Wales, the single-informant Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is used to assess and monitor looked-after children’s (LAC) mental health; and some targeted Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) include a minimum SDQ score in their acceptance criteria. However, its ability to identify LAC who need mental health treatment is insufficiently understood. Methods: One hundred and forty four LAC referrals to a Targeted CAMHS Team were screened as part of a larger study. To establish how well the SDQ identified children who required treatment, Total Difficulties Scores from single-informant SDQs submitted at referral were compared to treatment recommendations following routine CAMHS assessment in a real-world setting. To explain the results, clinicians (n = 9) from the team were interviewed and key themes identified using thematic analysis. Results: AUROC analysis found that the single-informant SDQ discriminated between children who were assessed as needing a mental health intervention and those who did not with low accuracy when SDQs were completed by carers or young people themselves, and moderate accuracy for teacher-completed SDQs. Optimal cutoff scores are calculated and are lower than advised in scoring guidance. Key themes from clinician interviews identified possible gaps and limitations: Developmental trauma and attachment difficulties, A different kind of patient?, Seeing the “bad” but neglecting the sad, and The importance of clinical judgment. Conclusions: Contrary to current UK Government policy, this study suggests that the single-report SDQ should not be relied upon as a sole means of identifying mental health difficulties in this vulnerable, high-risk population.","PeriodicalId":36239,"journal":{"name":"Developmental Child Welfare","volume":"1 1","pages":"159 - 176"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2516103218817555","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire to identify treatment needs in looked-after children referred to CAMHS\",\"authors\":\"Hannah Wright, D. Wellsted, Jacqui Gratton, S. Besser, N. Midgley\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2516103218817555\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: In England and Wales, the single-informant Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is used to assess and monitor looked-after children’s (LAC) mental health; and some targeted Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) include a minimum SDQ score in their acceptance criteria. However, its ability to identify LAC who need mental health treatment is insufficiently understood. Methods: One hundred and forty four LAC referrals to a Targeted CAMHS Team were screened as part of a larger study. To establish how well the SDQ identified children who required treatment, Total Difficulties Scores from single-informant SDQs submitted at referral were compared to treatment recommendations following routine CAMHS assessment in a real-world setting. To explain the results, clinicians (n = 9) from the team were interviewed and key themes identified using thematic analysis. Results: AUROC analysis found that the single-informant SDQ discriminated between children who were assessed as needing a mental health intervention and those who did not with low accuracy when SDQs were completed by carers or young people themselves, and moderate accuracy for teacher-completed SDQs. Optimal cutoff scores are calculated and are lower than advised in scoring guidance. Key themes from clinician interviews identified possible gaps and limitations: Developmental trauma and attachment difficulties, A different kind of patient?, Seeing the “bad” but neglecting the sad, and The importance of clinical judgment. Conclusions: Contrary to current UK Government policy, this study suggests that the single-report SDQ should not be relied upon as a sole means of identifying mental health difficulties in this vulnerable, high-risk population.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36239,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Developmental Child Welfare\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"159 - 176\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2516103218817555\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Developmental Child Welfare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2516103218817555\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Developmental Child Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2516103218817555","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

背景:在英格兰和威尔士,单一信息者优势和困难问卷(SDQ)用于评估和监测被照顾儿童(LAC)的心理健康;一些有针对性的儿童和青少年心理健康服务(CAMHS)在其接受标准中包括最低SDQ分数。然而,人们对其识别需要心理健康治疗的拉丁美洲和加勒比地区的能力了解不足。方法:作为一项更大规模研究的一部分,筛选了一百四十四名LAC转诊至目标CAMHS团队的患者。为了确定SDQ在多大程度上识别出需要治疗的儿童,将转诊时提交的单一信息者SDQ的总困难得分与现实世界中常规CAMHS评估后的治疗建议进行比较。为了解释结果,来自该团队的临床医生(n=9)接受了采访,并使用主题分析确定了关键主题。结果:AUROC分析发现,当护理人员或年轻人自己完成SDQ时,单一信息者SDQ在被评估为需要心理健康干预的儿童和没有需要心理健康介入的儿童之间存在差异,准确性较低,而教师完成的SDQ的准确性中等。计算出的最佳截止分数低于评分指南中建议的分数。临床医生访谈的关键主题确定了可能的差距和局限性:发展创伤和依恋困难,不同类型的患者?,看到了“坏”却忽视了悲伤,以及临床判断的重要性。结论:与英国政府现行政策相反,本研究表明,不应将单一报告SDQ作为识别这一弱势、高危人群心理健康困难的唯一手段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Use of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire to identify treatment needs in looked-after children referred to CAMHS
Background: In England and Wales, the single-informant Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is used to assess and monitor looked-after children’s (LAC) mental health; and some targeted Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) include a minimum SDQ score in their acceptance criteria. However, its ability to identify LAC who need mental health treatment is insufficiently understood. Methods: One hundred and forty four LAC referrals to a Targeted CAMHS Team were screened as part of a larger study. To establish how well the SDQ identified children who required treatment, Total Difficulties Scores from single-informant SDQs submitted at referral were compared to treatment recommendations following routine CAMHS assessment in a real-world setting. To explain the results, clinicians (n = 9) from the team were interviewed and key themes identified using thematic analysis. Results: AUROC analysis found that the single-informant SDQ discriminated between children who were assessed as needing a mental health intervention and those who did not with low accuracy when SDQs were completed by carers or young people themselves, and moderate accuracy for teacher-completed SDQs. Optimal cutoff scores are calculated and are lower than advised in scoring guidance. Key themes from clinician interviews identified possible gaps and limitations: Developmental trauma and attachment difficulties, A different kind of patient?, Seeing the “bad” but neglecting the sad, and The importance of clinical judgment. Conclusions: Contrary to current UK Government policy, this study suggests that the single-report SDQ should not be relied upon as a sole means of identifying mental health difficulties in this vulnerable, high-risk population.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Developmental Child Welfare
Developmental Child Welfare Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
×
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