Evidence-based guidelines for anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder and Tourette syndrome in children and youth: A rapid review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In response to the increasing need for mental health services in Canadian children and youth, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research launched funding towards developing pan-Canadian standards for children and youth mental health services. Objective: The objective of this rapid review is to synthesize current evidence-based recommendations on assessment and treatment for children and youth with anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and Tourette syndrome (TS). Methods: This rapid review was developed and conducted using the STARR decision tool and the Cochrane organization's minimum standards. We included evidence-based guidelines providing recommendations for and comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of implementation of evidence-based guideline recommendations on assessment and/or treatment of anxiety, depression, OCD, or TS in children and youth compared to usual care. Results: Twenty guidelines and one study of the effectiveness of treatment approximating guideline standards were included in this review. There was reasonable consistency in recommendations between guidelines, especially for the management of anxiety disorders and TS, where psychological therapies were recommended as first line. For depression, some minor differences were noted in recommendations for the management of moderate to severe depression, with psychological therapies or SSRIs recommended as first-line in the some guidelines, whereas other guidelines prioritized psychological therapies. Conclusion: Current evidence-based guidelines prioritize psychological therapies for children and adolescents with anxiety, depression, OCD, or TS. If adequate and equitable service provision is a priority for decision makers, it is essential for the healthcare system to fund appropriately trained mental health therapists to deliver these interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".