Types of parental involvement in CBT with anxious youth: A preliminary meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Meta-analytic studies have not confirmed that involving parents in cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for anxious children is therapeutically beneficial. There is also great heterogeneity in the type of parental involvement included. We investigated parental involvement focused on contingency management (CM) and transfer of control (TC) as a potential outcome moderator using a meta-analysis with individual patient data. METHOD: Investigators of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CBT for anxious children, identified systematically, were invited to submit their data. Conditions in each RCT were coded based on type of parental involvement in CBT (i.e., low involvement, active involvement without emphasis on CM or TC, active involvement with emphasis on CM or TC). Treatment outcomes were compared using a 1-stage meta-analysis. RESULTS: All cases involved in active treatment (894 of 1,618) were included for subgroup analyses. Across all CBT groups, means of clinical severity, anxiety, and internalizing symptoms significantly decreased posttreatment and were comparable across groups. The group without emphasis on CM or TC showed a higher proportion with posttreatment anxiety diagnoses than the low-involvement group. Between posttreatment and 1-year follow-up, the proportion with anxiety diagnoses significantly decreased in CBT with active parental involvement with emphasis on CM or TC, whereas treatment gains were merely maintained in the other 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: CBT for anxious children is an effective treatment with or without active parental involvement. However, CBT with active parental involvement emphasizing CM or TC may support long-term maintenance of treatment gains. RESULTS should be replicated as additional RCTs are published.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".