MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211112610 · doi:10.4073/csr.2005.1

Multisystemic Therapy for Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Problems in Youth Aged 10–17

2005· article· en· W4211112610 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julia H. Littell, Melanie Popa, Burnee Forsythe

Bibliographic record

VenueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSmith Richardson Foundation
KeywordsPsychosocialPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewPsychologyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this Campbell Systematic Review was to evaluate the effect of multi-systemic therapy (MST) on adolescents with social, emotional, and behavioural problems based on the best available evidence. The effect is measured by a range of behavioural and psychosocial outcomes, including the number of institutional placements and arrests, the incidence of drug abuse, and personal relationships, social skills, absence from school, etc. The review is exclusively based on randomised controlled trials in which random allocation between MST and usual treatment has taken place. 266 reports were selected on the basis of title and abstract. Of these 35 were found actually to be effect studies. And finally, eight of the 35 effect studies met the pre-set quality criteria laid down in the original Campbell/Cochrane review. The Campbell/Cochrane review concludes that MST does not have consistently better effects than other types of interventions - for example, restrictive institutional placement. On the other hand, nothing indicates that MST has any negative overall effects. All in all, MST does not seem to be any better or any poorer than other treatments. The Campbell/Cochrane review concludes that there are no consistent differences in outcome between the adolescents subject to MST and those subject to alternative treatment. This conclusion is based on the best available evidence on the effectiveness of MST. Synopsis Results of eight randomised controlled trials of Multisystemic Therapy (MST) conducted in the USA, Canada, and Norway indicate that it is premature to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of MST compared with other services. Results are inconsistent across studies that vary in quality and context. There is no information about the effects of MST compared with no treatment. There is no evidence that MST has harmful effects. Abstract Background Multisystemic Therapy (MST) is an intensive, home-based intervention for families of youth with social, emotional, and behavioral problems. Masters-level therapists engage family members in identifying and changing individual, family, and environmental factors thought to contribute to problem behavior. Intervention may include efforts to improve communication, parenting skills, peer relations, school performance, and social networks. Most MST trials were conducted by program developers in the USA; results of one independent trial are available and others are in progress. Objectives To provide unbiased estimates of the impacts of MST on restrictive out-of-home living arrangements, crime and delinquency, and other behavioral and psychosocial outcomes for youth and families. Search strategy Electronic searches were made of bibliographic databases (including the Cochrane Library, C2-SPECTR, PsycINFO, Science Direct and Sociological Abstracts) as well as government and professional websites, from 1985 to January 2003. Reference lists of articles were examined, and experts were contacted. Selection criteria Studies where youth (age 10–17) with social, emotional, and/or behavioral problems were randomised to licensed MST programs or other conditions (usual services or alternative treatments). Data collection & analysis Two reviewers independently reviewed 266 titles and abstracts; 95 full-text reports were retrieved, and 35 unique studies were identified. Two reviewers independently read all study reports for inclusion. Eight studies were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality and extracted data from these studies. Significant heterogeneity among studies was identified (assessed using Chi-square and I 2 ), hence random effects models were used to pool data across studies. Odds ratios were used in analyses of dichotomous outcomes; standardised mean differences were used with continuous outcomes. Adjustments were made for small sample sizes (using Hedges g). Pooled estimates were weighted with inverse variance methods, and 95% confidence intervals were used. Main results The most rigorous (intent-to-treat) analysis found no significant differences between MST and usual services in restrictive out-of-home placements and arrests or convictions. Pooled results that include studies with data of varying quality tend to favor MST, but these relative effects are not significantly different from zero. The study sample size is small and effects are not consistent across studies; hence, it is not clear whether MST has clinically significant advantages over other services. Reviewers' conclusions There is inconclusive evidence of the effectiveness of MST compared with other interventions for youth. There is no evidence that MST has harmful effects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCampbell Systematic ReviewsSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207