Cited by 72Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchBehavioral and Psychological StudiesChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues

Effectiveness of Training Therapists to Deliver An Individualized Mental Health Intervention for Children With ASD in Publicly Funded Mental Health Services: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Brookman-Frazee, Lauren, Roesch, Scott, Chlebowski, Colby, Baker-Ericzen, Mary, Ganger, William·2019·JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract

Importance: Publicly funded mental health services play an important role in addressing co-occurring mental health problems in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD); however, therapists report lacking training to effectively serve this complex population. Objective: To test the effectiveness of training community therapists in An Individualized Mental Health Intervention for ASD (AIM HI) on challenging behaviors across 18 months among children with ASD and identify moderators and mediators of any intervention effects. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster randomized trial conducted in 29 publicly funded outpatient and school-based mental health programs in southern California from 2012 to 2017. Programs were randomized to receive immediate AIM HI training or provide usual care followed by receipt of AIM HI training. Therapist participants were recruited from enrolled programs, and child participants were recruited from participant therapists' caseloads. Data were analyzed from 202 children with ASD who were aged 5 to 13 years. Interventions: The AIM HI protocol is a package of parent-mediated and child-focused strategies aimed to reduce challenging behaviors in children with ASD who are 5 to 13 years old. It was designed for delivery in publicly funded mental health services based on a systematic assessment of therapist training needs and child clinical needs. The therapist training and consultation process takes approximately 6 months and includes an introductory workshop, 11 structured consultation meetings as the therapist delivers AIM HI with a current client, and case-specific performance feedback from trainers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Child participants were assessed for challenging behaviors using the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) and Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) Competing Problem Behaviors scales based on parent report at baseline and at 6-month intervals for 18 months. Outcomes were analyzed using intent-to-treat models. Results: In total, 202 children with ASD (mean [SD] age, 9.1 [2.4] years; 170 [84.2%] male; 121 [59.9%] Latinx) were eligible, enrolled, and included in the analyses. Statistically significant group by time interactions for the ECBI Intensity (B = -0.38; P = .02) and ECBI Problem (B = -1.00; P = .005) scales were observed, with significantly larger decreases in ECBI Intensity scores in the AIM HI group (B = -1.36; P < .001) relative to the usual care group (B = -0.98; P < .001) and a significantly larger decrease in ECBI Problem scores in the AIM HI group (B = -1.22; P < .001) relative to the usual care group (B = -0.20; P = .29). Therapist fidelity moderated these intervention effects. Conclusions and Relevance: The present findings support the effectiveness of training therapists to deliver the AIM HI model to children with ASD receiving publicly funded mental health services. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02416323.

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.2019.0011

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Being able to individualise the treatment increases the chances that the treatment will both get the patient to stay in the treatment and that the treatment will have the intended effect.

    “Being able to individualise the treatment increases the chances that the treatment will both get the patient to stay in the treatment and that the treatment will have the intended effect (48).”

    From A systematic review on the efficacy of virtual reality and gamification interventions for managing anxiety and depression (2023) · cites this paper as [48]

    The outcome analyses report greater reductions in challenging behaviors for children receiving AIM HI than for those receiving usual care, supporting the intended-effect part of the claim in this setting. But the Assessments section says there was no difference between study conditions in the likelihood of remaining in treatment. The study also tested the individualized intervention and therapist training together, so it cannot isolate individualization as the cause of the improved outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Constantino JN, Gruber CP. Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition (SRS-2). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services; 2012.
  2. Elliott CD. Differential Ability Scales-II (DAS-II). San Antonio, TX: Pearson; 2007.
  3. Elliot SN, Gresham FM. Social Skills Improvement System: Intervention Guide. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments; 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brookman-Frazee, L., Roesch, S., Chlebowski, C., Baker-Ericzen, M., & Ganger, W.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • San Diego State University (US)
  • Child and Adolescent Services Research Center, San Diego, California
Corresponding author
Brookman-Frazee, Lauren
Venue
JAMA Psychiatry
Published
2019-06-01
Volume
76
Issue
6
Pages
574
ISSN
2168-622X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2918667423
Cited by
71
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
FWCI
6.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH094317)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, behavioral problems, therapist training, publicly funded mental health services, parent-mediated intervention, child-focused interventions, school-based mental health programs, Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory, Social Skills Improvement System
MeSH terms
Problem Behavior, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Adolescent, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Financing, Government, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Precision Medicine

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