使用优势和困难调查表和简要评估清单对受照顾儿童进行心理健康筛查:来自三项国家研究的指导

Q2 Social Sciences
M. Tarren‐Sweeney, Anouk Goemans, Anna Sophie Hahne, M. Gieve
{"title":"使用优势和困难调查表和简要评估清单对受照顾儿童进行心理健康筛查:来自三项国家研究的指导","authors":"M. Tarren‐Sweeney, Anouk Goemans, Anna Sophie Hahne, M. Gieve","doi":"10.1177/2516103219829756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although children residing in statutory out-of-home care and those adopted from care are more likely than not to have mental health difficulties requiring clinical intervention or support, their difficulties often remain undetected. Children’s agencies have a duty of care to identify those child clients who require therapeutic and other support services, without regard to the availability of such services. The present article proposes a first-stage mental health screening procedure (calibrated for high sensitivity) for children and adolescents (ages 4–17) in alternative care, which children’s agencies can implement without clinical oversight using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and Brief Assessment Checklists (BAC). The screening procedure was derived from analyses of BAC, SDQ, and “proxy SDQ” scores obtained in three national studies of children and adolescents residing in alternative care (Australia, the Netherlands, and England). The SDQ and BAC demonstrated moderate to high screening accuracy across a range of clinical case criteria—the SDQ being slightly better at predicting general mental health problems and the BAC slightly better at predicting attachment- and trauma-related problems. Accurate first-stage screening is achieved using either the SDQ or the BAC alone, with recommended cut points of 10 (i.e., positive screen is 10 or higher) for the SDQ and 7 for the BAC. Greater accuracy is gained from using the SDQ and BAC in parallel, with positive screens defined by an SDQ score of 11 or higher or a BAC score of 8 or higher. Agencies and post-adoption support services should refer positive screens for comprehensive mental health assessment by clinical services.","PeriodicalId":36239,"journal":{"name":"Developmental Child Welfare","volume":"1 1","pages":"177 - 196"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2516103219829756","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mental health screening for children in care using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Brief Assessment Checklists: Guidance from three national studies\",\"authors\":\"M. Tarren‐Sweeney, Anouk Goemans, Anna Sophie Hahne, M. Gieve\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2516103219829756\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although children residing in statutory out-of-home care and those adopted from care are more likely than not to have mental health difficulties requiring clinical intervention or support, their difficulties often remain undetected. Children’s agencies have a duty of care to identify those child clients who require therapeutic and other support services, without regard to the availability of such services. The present article proposes a first-stage mental health screening procedure (calibrated for high sensitivity) for children and adolescents (ages 4–17) in alternative care, which children’s agencies can implement without clinical oversight using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and Brief Assessment Checklists (BAC). The screening procedure was derived from analyses of BAC, SDQ, and “proxy SDQ” scores obtained in three national studies of children and adolescents residing in alternative care (Australia, the Netherlands, and England). The SDQ and BAC demonstrated moderate to high screening accuracy across a range of clinical case criteria—the SDQ being slightly better at predicting general mental health problems and the BAC slightly better at predicting attachment- and trauma-related problems. Accurate first-stage screening is achieved using either the SDQ or the BAC alone, with recommended cut points of 10 (i.e., positive screen is 10 or higher) for the SDQ and 7 for the BAC. Greater accuracy is gained from using the SDQ and BAC in parallel, with positive screens defined by an SDQ score of 11 or higher or a BAC score of 8 or higher. Agencies and post-adoption support services should refer positive screens for comprehensive mental health assessment by clinical services.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36239,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Developmental Child Welfare\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"177 - 196\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2516103219829756\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Developmental Child Welfare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2516103219829756\",\"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/10.1177/2516103219829756","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: 5

摘要

虽然居住在法定家庭外照料机构的儿童和从照料机构收养的儿童更有可能出现需要临床干预或支持的精神健康问题,但他们的困难往往未被发现。儿童机构有义务注意查明需要治疗和其他支助服务的儿童服务对象,而不考虑是否提供这种服务。本文提出了替代照料儿童和青少年(4-17岁)的第一阶段心理健康筛查程序(校准为高灵敏度),儿童机构可以使用优势和困难问卷(SDQ)和简要评估清单(BAC)在没有临床监督的情况下实施。筛选程序来源于对居住在替代性护理中的儿童和青少年的三项全国性研究(澳大利亚、荷兰和英国)中获得的BAC、SDQ和“代理SDQ”评分的分析。SDQ和BAC在一系列临床病例标准中显示出中高的筛选准确性——SDQ在预测一般精神健康问题方面稍好,而BAC在预测依恋和创伤相关问题方面稍好。仅使用SDQ或BAC即可实现准确的第一阶段筛查,建议SDQ的切割点为10(即阳性筛查为10或更高),BAC为7。同时使用SDQ和BAC可以获得更高的准确性,SDQ评分为11分或更高,BAC评分为8分或更高。各机构和收养后支助服务机构应将阳性筛查结果提交临床服务机构进行全面心理健康评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mental health screening for children in care using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Brief Assessment Checklists: Guidance from three national studies
Although children residing in statutory out-of-home care and those adopted from care are more likely than not to have mental health difficulties requiring clinical intervention or support, their difficulties often remain undetected. Children’s agencies have a duty of care to identify those child clients who require therapeutic and other support services, without regard to the availability of such services. The present article proposes a first-stage mental health screening procedure (calibrated for high sensitivity) for children and adolescents (ages 4–17) in alternative care, which children’s agencies can implement without clinical oversight using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and Brief Assessment Checklists (BAC). The screening procedure was derived from analyses of BAC, SDQ, and “proxy SDQ” scores obtained in three national studies of children and adolescents residing in alternative care (Australia, the Netherlands, and England). The SDQ and BAC demonstrated moderate to high screening accuracy across a range of clinical case criteria—the SDQ being slightly better at predicting general mental health problems and the BAC slightly better at predicting attachment- and trauma-related problems. Accurate first-stage screening is achieved using either the SDQ or the BAC alone, with recommended cut points of 10 (i.e., positive screen is 10 or higher) for the SDQ and 7 for the BAC. Greater accuracy is gained from using the SDQ and BAC in parallel, with positive screens defined by an SDQ score of 11 or higher or a BAC score of 8 or higher. Agencies and post-adoption support services should refer positive screens for comprehensive mental health assessment by clinical services.
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