Psychological interventions for externalising behaviours following paediatric traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and clinical practice recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To identify and examine whether evidence-based psychological interventions reduce externalising behaviours in persons who sustained a traumatic brain injury (TBI) in childhood and adolescence. Methods This systematic review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Five electronic databases (i.e. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, EMBASE and ERIC) were systematically searched, with publication dates ranging from 1946 to February 2025. Terms, such as 'TBI', 'externalising', 'aggression', and 'paediatric', were employed in the search. Results The overall searches returned 3551 articles. Of the total, 535 duplicates were excluded, and 2973 records were excluded through screening titles and abstracts. Seventy studies met preliminary established criteria. Of these, 10 studies met inclusion criteria; one (10%) was a nonrandomised study (quasi-experimental design), six (60%) were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with one-group comparison and three (30%) were RCTs with two-group comparison. Conclusions Despite a limited number of studies, five preliminary clinical practice recommendations were developed. Specifically, this review has identified Family Problem-Solving Therapy and Teen Online Problem Solving as having potential efficacy for adolescence to emerging adulthood (moderate to severe TBI) and late childhood to adolescence (mild to severe TBI) age groups. Additional clinical and methodological implications, along with limitations and future directions, are considered.
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 | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| 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; 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".