Marija Maric, Lea Schumacher, Wim Van den Noortgate, Linda Bettelli, Wies Engelbertink, Yvonne Stikkelbroek
{"title":"儿童和青少年内化障碍单例干预研究的多水平荟萃分析。","authors":"Marija Maric, Lea Schumacher, Wim Van den Noortgate, Linda Bettelli, Wies Engelbertink, Yvonne Stikkelbroek","doi":"10.1007/s10567-023-00432-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The effectiveness of interventions for internalizing disorders in children and adolescents was studied using a review and meta-analysis of published single-case research. Databases and other resources were searched for quantitative single-case studies in youth with anxiety, depressive, and posttraumatic stress disorders. Raw data from individual cases were aggregated and analyzed by means of multilevel meta-analytic models. Outcome variables were symptom severity assessed across baseline and treatment phases of the studies, and diagnostic status at post- and follow-up treatment. Single-case studies were rated for quality. We identified 71 studies including 321 cases (M<sup>age</sup> = 10.66 years; 55% female). The mean quality of the studies was rated as below average, although there were considerable differences between the studies. Overall, positive within-person changes during the treatment phase in comparison to the baseline phase were found. In addition, positive changes in the diagnostic status were observed at post- and follow-up treatment. Yet high variability in treatment effects was found between cases and studies. This meta-analysis harvests the knowledge from published single-case research in youth-internalizing disorders and illustrates how within-person information from single-case studies can be summarized to explore the generalizability of the results from this type of research. The results emphasize the importance of keeping account of individual variability in providing and investigating youth interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51399,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10123043/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Multilevel Meta-analysis of Single-Case Research on Interventions for Internalizing Disorders in Children and Adolescents.\",\"authors\":\"Marija Maric, Lea Schumacher, Wim Van den Noortgate, Linda Bettelli, Wies Engelbertink, Yvonne Stikkelbroek\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10567-023-00432-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The effectiveness of interventions for internalizing disorders in children and adolescents was studied using a review and meta-analysis of published single-case research. Databases and other resources were searched for quantitative single-case studies in youth with anxiety, depressive, and posttraumatic stress disorders. Raw data from individual cases were aggregated and analyzed by means of multilevel meta-analytic models. Outcome variables were symptom severity assessed across baseline and treatment phases of the studies, and diagnostic status at post- and follow-up treatment. Single-case studies were rated for quality. We identified 71 studies including 321 cases (M<sup>age</sup> = 10.66 years; 55% female). The mean quality of the studies was rated as below average, although there were considerable differences between the studies. Overall, positive within-person changes during the treatment phase in comparison to the baseline phase were found. In addition, positive changes in the diagnostic status were observed at post- and follow-up treatment. Yet high variability in treatment effects was found between cases and studies. This meta-analysis harvests the knowledge from published single-case research in youth-internalizing disorders and illustrates how within-person information from single-case studies can be summarized to explore the generalizability of the results from this type of research. The results emphasize the importance of keeping account of individual variability in providing and investigating youth interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51399,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10123043/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-023-00432-9\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-023-00432-9","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Multilevel Meta-analysis of Single-Case Research on Interventions for Internalizing Disorders in Children and Adolescents.
The effectiveness of interventions for internalizing disorders in children and adolescents was studied using a review and meta-analysis of published single-case research. Databases and other resources were searched for quantitative single-case studies in youth with anxiety, depressive, and posttraumatic stress disorders. Raw data from individual cases were aggregated and analyzed by means of multilevel meta-analytic models. Outcome variables were symptom severity assessed across baseline and treatment phases of the studies, and diagnostic status at post- and follow-up treatment. Single-case studies were rated for quality. We identified 71 studies including 321 cases (Mage = 10.66 years; 55% female). The mean quality of the studies was rated as below average, although there were considerable differences between the studies. Overall, positive within-person changes during the treatment phase in comparison to the baseline phase were found. In addition, positive changes in the diagnostic status were observed at post- and follow-up treatment. Yet high variability in treatment effects was found between cases and studies. This meta-analysis harvests the knowledge from published single-case research in youth-internalizing disorders and illustrates how within-person information from single-case studies can be summarized to explore the generalizability of the results from this type of research. The results emphasize the importance of keeping account of individual variability in providing and investigating youth interventions.
期刊介绍:
Editors-in-Chief: Dr. Ronald J. Prinz, University of South Carolina and Dr. Thomas H. Ollendick, Virginia Polytechnic Institute Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal that provides an international, interdisciplinary forum in which important and new developments in this field are identified and in-depth reviews on current thought and practices are published. The Journal publishes original research reviews, conceptual and theoretical papers, and related work in the broad area of the behavioral sciences that pertains to infants, children, adolescents, and families. Contributions originate from a wide array of disciplines including, but not limited to, psychology (e.g., clinical, community, developmental, family, school), medicine (e.g., family practice, pediatrics, psychiatry), public health, social work, and education. Topical content includes science and application and covers facets of etiology, assessment, description, treatment and intervention, prevention, methodology, and public policy. Submissions are by invitation only and undergo peer review. The Editors, in consultation with the Editorial Board, invite highly qualified experts to contribute original papers on topics of timely interest and significance.