Outcomes for treated anxious children: a critical review of Long-Term-Follow-Up studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders are the most common psychiatric disorders of childhood, generating significant distress in the individual and an economic burden to society. They are precursors to diverse psychiatric illnesses and have an impact on development. Childhood anxiety's reach into the future accentuates the importance of studying the long-term effect of treatment. The purpose of this paper is to examine existing Long-Term-Follow-Up (LTFU) studies' capacity to inform us on the impact of anxiety treatment on development. METHOD: Medline, PsycInfo, SciSearch, SocScisearch, Cinhal, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched. Bibliographies of relevant book chapters and review articles and information from colleagues with expertise in anxiety were also a source of information. The search produced more than a thousand citations. Only eight studies met inclusion criteria: follow-up of a cohort of treated anxious youth for more than 2 years. RESULTS: follow-up ranged from 2 to 7.4 years. The studies were methodologically rigorous and, in general, showed maintenance of or improvement in acute treatment gains. The studies reviewed could not outline course of recovery or control for pivotal confounding variables such as maturation. Seven of the eight studies employed a Cognitive Behavioral intervention and one employed a manualized, time-limited, psychodynamic intervention. No LTFU trial for medication was found. CONCLUSION: ample evidence exists for the short-term benefit of pediatric anxiety treatment, but evidence is still lacking for the understanding of treatment's role in the facilitation of healthy development into adulthood. Recommendations for future research are proposed.
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 | 0.019 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".