Parent Versus Individual Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Youth Anxiety: Protocol for an Overview of Systematic Reviews Over Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has shown to be highly effective for treating youth anxiety; yet, there is ongoing debate as to whether involving parents improves outcomes. For example, parents who attend may learn CBT skills to help their child in an ongoing way; yet, they could also distract their child from treatment depending on how they interact. As evidence has accumulated, reviews and meta-analyses have attempted to examine the most effective treatment format. These reviews often have high impact in the field; however, they use varied methodologies and draw on different primary studies. Different formats of CBT for youth anxiety have been developed in relation to parental involvement, including youth-only CBT (Y-CBT; where the youth alone attends treatment), youth and parent or family CBT (F-CBT; where youths and their parents attend together), and, most recently, parent-only CBT (P-CBT; where the parent alone attends). OBJECTIVE: This protocol describes an overview of systematic reviews comparing the relative efficacy of different formats of CBT for youth anxiety (Y-CBT, F-CBT, and P-CBT) over the study period. The protocol will also examine the moderating effects of variables on the efficacy of different formats; for example, youths' age and long-term outcomes. METHODS: We will analyze the results of systematic reviews that compare different levels and types of parental involvement in CBT for youth anxiety over the study period. A systematic review of medical and psychological databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase) will identify reviews comparing the efficacy of different formats of parent involvement in CBT for youth anxiety. Data extraction will include (1) author names (and year of publication), (2) review design, (3) age range, (4) analysis type, (5) conclusions, and (6) moderators. This overview will present the relative efficacy of formats chronologically in a table and then describe the main results longitudinally in a narrative summary. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, 2nd Edition (AMSTAR 2), quality rating will be given to each review, and the amount of primary study overlap across reviews will be quantified. RESULTS: The last search was conducted on July 1, 2022. The reviews were published between 2005 and 2022. We found a total of 3529 articles, of which we identified 25 for the final analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This overview will compare and report the relative efficacy of Y-CBT, P-CBT, and F-CBT for youth anxiety over the study period, describe the heterogeneity across reviews and primary studies, and consider the moderating effect of relevant variables. It will describe the limitations of an overview, including the potential for nuance in the data to be lost, and provide conclusions and recommendations for conducting systematic reviews regarding parental involvement for CBT for youth anxiety. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/48077.
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 | 0.045 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.108 | 0.012 |
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".