Brief emotion‐focused family therapy: A 12‐month follow‐up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study provides a 12-month follow-up evaluation of caregivers after participating in a 2-day Emotion-focused family therapy (EFFT) intensive, a brief intervention for caregivers of youth struggling with mental health difficulties. Caregivers (N = 498) of children (N = 337) completed measures of caregiver self-efficacy and child mental health difficulties 1 week before the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and at 4, 8, and 12-month follow-ups. Piecewise latent trajectory models revealed that parental self-efficacy showed a large immediate increase following the intervention, β = 1.61 (1.32, 2.14), and although this effect was attenuated by 4 months, β = -0.77 (-1.31, -0.52), it did not change further by 12 months. Reductions in child mental health difficulties were observed by 4 months, β = -0.54 (-0.77, -0.37), and remained stable through the 12-month follow-up. Caregivers reporting more increases in self-efficacy also reported greater reductions in their children's symptoms at 4 and 12 months.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".