{"title":"实施创伤聚焦认知行为治疗青少年缓刑:经验教训","authors":"M. Pangilinan","doi":"10.23954/osj.v4i1.2012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE: The implementation of Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT) for youth under probation is underresearched. Since a TF-CBT project implementation goal was not met, the author aimed to address the following questions: What were the unaddressed barriers to TF-CBT participation and completion? What factors could have significantly impacted TF-CBT completion? Were the positive outcomes of TF-CBT on the project's proposed measures confirmed? The author likewise aimed to capture the lessons from this project’s implementation.METHOD: Review of administrative documents focused on project set-up, flow of participation and TF-CBT completion to identify the barriers. Chart reviews included data for 54 out of 60 TF-CBT participants. Three TF-CBT youth groups were identified. TF-CBT with: no in vivo (C7, n = 12); four to six TF-CBT components, including trauma narration (C4-6, n = 13); and one to four components in phase I of TF-CBT (C1-4, n = 29). All statistical tests were set at p < .05. Groups were compared on demographics, pre-TF-CBT trauma and functioning, assessment and treatment services, justice involvement, and services satisfaction. Outcome measures were change scores on the UCLA Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Reaction Index, Youth Outcome Questionnaire and youth arrests.RESULTS: The unaddressed barriers could very well be due to youth’s low disclosure and development of trust and therapist’s skills. Significant between-groups difference in parental involvement (χ2 = 6.08, p < .05) and number of trauma events experienced (F = 3.58, p < .05); and significant decrease in overall trauma symptom scores before and after TF-CBT participation with a very large effect size in group C7 (t = 3.73, p < .001, d = 1.08) were found.LESSONS LEARNED: The therapists were possibly viewed by the youth as part of the police system (which justice involved youth likely do not trust). Future implementations must seriously consider: the need for sufficient training of therapists; waiving program eligibility requirements; the value of a coherent communications protocol, clinical quality review and management, early assessment of services satisfaction, and information on families of justice involved youth; and, tracking behaviors that are incompatible with those that warrant arrests. ","PeriodicalId":22809,"journal":{"name":"The Open Food Science Journal","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementing Trauma Focused-Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Youth under Probation: Lessons Learned\",\"authors\":\"M. Pangilinan\",\"doi\":\"10.23954/osj.v4i1.2012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE: The implementation of Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT) for youth under probation is underresearched. Since a TF-CBT project implementation goal was not met, the author aimed to address the following questions: What were the unaddressed barriers to TF-CBT participation and completion? What factors could have significantly impacted TF-CBT completion? Were the positive outcomes of TF-CBT on the project's proposed measures confirmed? The author likewise aimed to capture the lessons from this project’s implementation.METHOD: Review of administrative documents focused on project set-up, flow of participation and TF-CBT completion to identify the barriers. Chart reviews included data for 54 out of 60 TF-CBT participants. Three TF-CBT youth groups were identified. TF-CBT with: no in vivo (C7, n = 12); four to six TF-CBT components, including trauma narration (C4-6, n = 13); and one to four components in phase I of TF-CBT (C1-4, n = 29). All statistical tests were set at p < .05. Groups were compared on demographics, pre-TF-CBT trauma and functioning, assessment and treatment services, justice involvement, and services satisfaction. Outcome measures were change scores on the UCLA Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Reaction Index, Youth Outcome Questionnaire and youth arrests.RESULTS: The unaddressed barriers could very well be due to youth’s low disclosure and development of trust and therapist’s skills. Significant between-groups difference in parental involvement (χ2 = 6.08, p < .05) and number of trauma events experienced (F = 3.58, p < .05); and significant decrease in overall trauma symptom scores before and after TF-CBT participation with a very large effect size in group C7 (t = 3.73, p < .001, d = 1.08) were found.LESSONS LEARNED: The therapists were possibly viewed by the youth as part of the police system (which justice involved youth likely do not trust). Future implementations must seriously consider: the need for sufficient training of therapists; waiving program eligibility requirements; the value of a coherent communications protocol, clinical quality review and management, early assessment of services satisfaction, and information on families of justice involved youth; and, tracking behaviors that are incompatible with those that warrant arrests. \",\"PeriodicalId\":22809,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Open Food Science Journal\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Open Food Science Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23954/osj.v4i1.2012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Open Food Science Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23954/osj.v4i1.2012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:创伤聚焦认知行为疗法(TF-CBT)在缓刑青少年中的实施研究尚不充分。由于未达到TF-CBT项目实施目标,作者旨在解决以下问题:参与和完成TF-CBT的未解决障碍是什么?哪些因素会显著影响TF-CBT的完成?TF-CBT对项目提议措施的积极成果是否得到确认?作者同样旨在从这个项目的实施中汲取经验教训。方法:审查行政文件,重点关注项目设置、参与流程和TF-CBT完成情况,以确定障碍。图表回顾包括60名TF-CBT参与者中的54名的数据。确定了三个TF-CBT青年群体。TF-CBT:体内无(C7, n = 12);4-6个TF-CBT组成部分,包括创伤叙述(C4-6, n = 13);TF-CBT I期1-4种成分(C1-4, n = 29)。所有统计学检验p < 0.05。各组在人口统计学、tf - cbt前的创伤和功能、评估和治疗服务、司法参与和服务满意度方面进行比较。结果测量是UCLA创伤后应激障碍反应指数、青少年结果问卷和青少年被捕的变化得分。结果:未解决的障碍很可能是由于青少年的低披露和发展的信任和治疗师的技能。父母参与程度(χ2 = 6.08, p < 0.05)、创伤事件次数(F = 3.58, p < 0.05)组间差异有统计学意义;C7组参与TF-CBT前后创伤症状总分显著下降,且效应量非常大(t = 3.73, p < 0.001, d = 1.08)。经验教训:青少年可能将治疗师视为警察系统的一部分(青少年可能不信任司法系统)。未来的实施必须认真考虑:需要对治疗师进行足够的培训;免除项目资格要求;连贯的沟通协议、临床质量审查和管理、服务满意度的早期评估以及涉及司法的青少年家庭信息的价值;而且,追踪的行为与逮捕的行为不相容。
Implementing Trauma Focused-Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Youth under Probation: Lessons Learned
OBJECTIVE: The implementation of Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT) for youth under probation is underresearched. Since a TF-CBT project implementation goal was not met, the author aimed to address the following questions: What were the unaddressed barriers to TF-CBT participation and completion? What factors could have significantly impacted TF-CBT completion? Were the positive outcomes of TF-CBT on the project's proposed measures confirmed? The author likewise aimed to capture the lessons from this project’s implementation.METHOD: Review of administrative documents focused on project set-up, flow of participation and TF-CBT completion to identify the barriers. Chart reviews included data for 54 out of 60 TF-CBT participants. Three TF-CBT youth groups were identified. TF-CBT with: no in vivo (C7, n = 12); four to six TF-CBT components, including trauma narration (C4-6, n = 13); and one to four components in phase I of TF-CBT (C1-4, n = 29). All statistical tests were set at p < .05. Groups were compared on demographics, pre-TF-CBT trauma and functioning, assessment and treatment services, justice involvement, and services satisfaction. Outcome measures were change scores on the UCLA Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Reaction Index, Youth Outcome Questionnaire and youth arrests.RESULTS: The unaddressed barriers could very well be due to youth’s low disclosure and development of trust and therapist’s skills. Significant between-groups difference in parental involvement (χ2 = 6.08, p < .05) and number of trauma events experienced (F = 3.58, p < .05); and significant decrease in overall trauma symptom scores before and after TF-CBT participation with a very large effect size in group C7 (t = 3.73, p < .001, d = 1.08) were found.LESSONS LEARNED: The therapists were possibly viewed by the youth as part of the police system (which justice involved youth likely do not trust). Future implementations must seriously consider: the need for sufficient training of therapists; waiving program eligibility requirements; the value of a coherent communications protocol, clinical quality review and management, early assessment of services satisfaction, and information on families of justice involved youth; and, tracking behaviors that are incompatible with those that warrant arrests.