Moderators of cognitive and behaviour therapies for prevention and treatment of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have indicated wide variation in the effectiveness of cognitive and behaviour therapies (CBTs) for preventing and treating anxiety disorders in children and adolescents, indicating the presence of moderators influencing outcomes. This meta-analysis investigated whether sample characteristics (child age, child baseline anxiety levels, parental baseline anxiety levels) and intervention characteristics (intervention duration, facilitator contact time, facilitator background, delivery formats, parental involvement) moderate the effectiveness of CBTs for universal prevention, targeted prevention, and treatment of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. We identified 86 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of 98 CBTs versus non-active controls. Effect sizes were the post-intervention standardized mean difference of children's broad anxiety symptoms between CBT and non-active controls. Moderation analyses were conducted separately on child- and parent-reported outcomes using meta-regression and subgroup analyses. We found some evidence for (1) a moderating role of child age, facilitator background, and parental involvement on the effectiveness of CBTs for universal prevention; (2) a moderating role of child age and intervention duration on the effectiveness of CBTs for targeted prevention; (3) a moderating role of child age, facilitator contact time, and delivery formats on the effectiveness of CBTs for treatment. There was no evidence for a moderating role of child baseline anxiety levels on the effectiveness of CBTs for universal/targeted prevention or treatment. The moderating role of parental baseline anxiety levels and its potential interaction with parental involvement was not tested given the limited available data. Although these findings provide insights into the question of what works for whom, they should be interpreted cautiously given the limited available data, wide variation in outcomes, potential confounders, and discrepancies between child- and parent-reported 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 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 | 0.024 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".