Eight years later: outcomes of <scp>CBT</scp>‐treated versus untreated anxious children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders are the most common psychiatric disorders of childhood, generate significant distress, are considered precursors to diverse psychiatric disorders, and lead to poor social and employment outcomes in adulthood. Although childhood anxiety has a significant impact on a child's developmental trajectory, only a handful of studies examined the long-term impact of treatment and none included a control group. The aim of this study was to conduct a long-term follow-up (LTFU) of anxious children who were treated with Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) compared to a matched group of children who were not. METHODS: Subjects comprised 120 children: a treatment group which included the first 60 consecutive consenting children who were diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and treated with CBT between the years 1997 and 2003 and a control group, 60 matched children who were assessed but not treated with CBT. An "ex-post-facto" design was used to compare the two groups. RESULTS: Children showed lower rates of anxiety diagnosis (about 50% for both groups) and significantly improved functioning at LTFU (time effect P < 0.0001; no group difference). Anxiety levels were significantly lower in the nontreatment group at LTFU as compared to initial assessment (P = 0.02), but not in the treatment group, and a significant between-group difference was found (P = 0.01) according to child. An inverse relationship was found between self-efficacy/self-esteem and anxiety outcome ([P = 0.0008] and [P = 0.04], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the assumption that childhood anxiety disorders may improve without treatment and highlights self-efficacy/self-esteem as potential factors in recovery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".