Development, reach, acceptability and associated clinical changes of a group intervention to improve caregiver‐adolescent relationships in the context of adolescent depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Adolescents with depression often experience relationship problems with their caregivers, which predict poorer treatment outcomes. Personalising interventions by targeting factors associated with poor treatment outcomes may enhance the effectiveness of interventions. We report the development and initial evaluation of an intervention designed to target caregiver‐adolescent relationship problems in the context of adolescent depression. Methods Following a literature search to identify established caregiver interventions, we developed a new group intervention for caregivers through an iterative process including six rounds of the group with n = 53 caregivers of adolescents age 13–18 in the context of an integrated care pathway for adolescent depression. Caregivers rated their family functioning at the beginning and end of the program and provided anonymous satisfaction ratings. Enrolment and attendance data were examined. Youth with lived experience of depression and their caregivers provided input that was incorporated in the final version of the intervention. Results The final intervention consists of 8 weekly, 1.5 h group sessions, delivered face‐to‐face, addressing: psychoeducation, the cognitive‐behavioural model and caregiving, positive caregiving, listening and validation, expressing emotions effectively, and problem solving. Reach (56%), attendance ( M = 63%, SD = 31%), and satisfaction ( M = 92%; SD = 7%) supported the feasibility of the program. Caregivers reported significant improvements in family functioning, t (21) = 2.68, p = .014, d z = 0.56 [95% CI 0.11–1.0]. Discussion A group intervention is acceptable to caregivers of adolescents with depression and may be associated with improved family functioning. Further research is needed, including a randomised controlled trial to test effects of the intervention on various dimensions of the caregiver‐youth relationship and on youth depression outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".