CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 412Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 110 of the 113 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Performance of Evidence-Based Youth Psychotherapies Compared With Usual Clinical Care: A Multilevel Meta-analysis

Open access
Weisz, John R., Kuppens, Sofie, Eckshtain, Dikla, Ugueto, Ana M., Hawley, Kristin M., Jensen-Doss, Amanda·2013·JAMA Psychiatry
DOI 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.1176PMC PMC3848075
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Research across more than 4 decades has produced numerous empirically tested evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) for psychopathology in children and adolescents. The EBPs were developed to improve on usual clinical interventions. Advocates argue that the EBPs should replace usual care, but this assumes that EBPs produce better outcomes than usual care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether EBPs do in fact produce better outcomes than usual care in youth psychotherapy. We performed a meta-analysis of 52 randomized trials directly comparing EBPs with usual care. Analyses assessed the overall effect of EBPs vs usual care and candidate moderators; we used multilevel analysis to address the dependency among effect sizes (ES) that is common but typically unaddressed in psychotherapy syntheses. DATA SOURCES: We searched the PubMed, PsychINFO, and Dissertation Abstracts International databases for studies from January 1, 1960, through December 31, 2010. STUDY SELECTION: We identified 507 randomized youth psychotherapy trials. Of these, the 52 studies that compared EBPs with usual care were included in the meta-analysis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Sixteen variables (participant, treatment, outcome, and study characteristics) were extracted from studies, and ESs were calculated for all comparisons of EBP vs usual care. We used an extension of the commonly used random-effects meta-analytic model to obtain an overall estimate of the difference between EBP and usual care while accounting for the dependency among ESs. We then fitted a 3-level mixed-effects model to identify moderators that might explain variation in ESs within and between studies by adding study or ES characteristics as fixed predictors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes of our meta-analysis were mean ES estimates across all studies and for levels of candidate moderators. These ES values were based on measures of symptoms, functioning, and other outcomes assessed within the 52 randomized trials. RESULTS: Evidence-based psychotherapies outperformed usual care. Mean ES was 0.29; the probability was 58% that a randomly selected youth would have a better outcome after EBP than a randomly selected youth after receiving usual care. The following 3 variables moderated treatment benefit: ESs decreased for studies conducted outside North America, for studies in which all participants were impaired enough to qualify for diagnoses, and for outcomes reported by informants other than the youths and parents in therapy. For certain key groups (eg, studies of clinically referred samples and youths with diagnoses), significant EBP effects were not demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Evidence-based psychotherapies outperform usual care, but the EBP advantage is modest and moderated by youth, location, and assessment characteristics. The EBPs have room for improvement in the magnitude and range of their benefit relative to usual clinical care.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.1176

Cites

110 of 110 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 113 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [7]General S Report of the Surgeon General's Conference on Children's Mental Health: A national action agenda Rockville, MD U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2004 20669515
  2. [20]Borenstein M Hedges LV Higgins JPT Rothstein HR Front Matter Introduction to Meta-Analysis John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2009
  3. [28]Roth A Fonagy P What works for whom? A critical review of psychotherapy research 2nd New York Guilford Press 2004
  4. [33]Hedges L Olkin I Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis Academic Press 1985
  5. [38]Raudenbush S Bryk A Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods (Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences) Sage Publications, Inc 2002

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 412

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Weisz, J. R., Kuppens, S., Eckshtain, D., Ugueto, A. M., Hawley, K. M., & Jensen-Doss, A.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • University of Missouri (US)
ORCID
Venue
JAMA Psychiatry
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2013-07-01
Volume
70
Issue
7
Pages
750
ISSN
2168-622X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.1176
PMC
PMC3848075
OpenAlex
W2074697449
Cited by
412
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9
FWCI
34.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R34MH085963, K23MH093491, MH 085963)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
evidence-based psychotherapy, adolescent psychotherapy, children and adolescents, treatment effect comparison, symptom outcomes, functional outcome, clinical referral, child and adolescent psychopathology
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Mental Disorders, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Psychotherapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Evidence-Based Practice, Multilevel Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review