Cognitive behavior therapy for child and adolescent anxiety disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To present an updated review of recent studies into the effect of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents, ways to increase access to therapy, and predictors and moderators of therapy effect. RECENT FINDINGS: The evidence base of CBT for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents continues to grow, demonstrating short and long-term efficacy and effectiveness. However, compared with active control conditions its effect appear to be modest; and a substantial percentage of youth do not show stable long-term remission. Standard CBT is often costly, with high noncompletion rates. New strategies to increase access to effective therapy for the large number of youth with anxiety disorders is therefore of priority. Additionally, there is a need for developing new ways to treat nonresponders, and to identify predictors and moderators of the effects of CBT. SUMMARY: Although there is evidence for the efficacy and effectiveness of CBT for youth with anxiety disorders, there is doubt regarding its superiority over active control comparisons. Long-term outcome is uncertain, as a substantial percentage of youth remains impaired at follow-up. It is essential to develop more cost-efficient strategies to reach youth with anxiety disorders with effective treatments, and to identify early indicators for youth needing additional therapy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".