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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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