Treatment for childhood and adolescent dissociation: A systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Dissociative symptoms are linked to experiences of trauma, often originating in childhood and adolescence. Dissociative disorders are associated with a high burden of illness and a poor quality of life. Despite evidence suggesting that early intervention can improve outcomes, little research exists on the treatment of dissociative disorders in childhood and adolescence. The current study aimed to systematically review the existing body of literature to identify current treatments applied within child and adolescent populations diagnosed with a dissociative disorder. METHOD: This review was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines. Databases were searched for relevant publications, resulting in 3,064 papers to be screened. Articles were included if they involved child or adolescent populations experiencing dissociation and undergoing treatment. Seven articles were included in the current review: two quantitative and five case studies. RESULTS: Treatment duration varied greatly, ranging from 1 to 29 months. Treatments were mostly combinations of psychotherapy, dialectical behavior therapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, as well as adjunctive therapies such as mindfulness and psychoeducation. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that the literature on current treatment for children and adolescents is clearly scarce, with only seven studies, five of which were case studies and two of which were over 20 years old. The treatments used for dissociation in children and adolescents experiencing dissociation were varied, but psychotherapy was the most used treatment method. This review has revealed that there is no clear framework that exists for the treatment of dissociation in child and adolescent patients, despite the need for one. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".