Development and Pilot Evaluation of a Manualized Cognitive-Behavioural Treatment Package for Adolescent Self-Harm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Manualized cognitive-behavioural therapy (MCBT) approaches to treating adolescent anxiety and depression have been shown to be effective in recent years, as have MCBT for adult self-harm (SH). AIMS: This paper describes the rationale for, development and pilot evaluation of the efficacy of a novel manualized CBT package for adolescent self-harm (SH). It also addresses the acceptability of this treatment package to therapists and patients. METHOD: Twenty-five adolescents (aged 12-18 years) presenting to a Community Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) in Greater London with SH behaviour began the "Cutting Down" programme and 16 (64%) completed the treatment. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, at the end of treatment and at 3 month follow up. RESULTS: Significant reductions in self-harm behaviour, depression symptoms and trait anxiety were reported. There was no change in state anxiety or in levels of parental expressed emotion as perceived by the adolescent. CONCLUSION: These pilot findings provide preliminary support for the efficacy and acceptability of this time-limited CBT package for adolescents who self-harm.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".