Comparing different modes of delivery: A pilot evaluation of a family-focused, cognitive-behavioral intervention for anxiety-disordered children
Abstract
Cognitive behavior therapy delivered by trained clinicians has been shown to be an effective treatment for childhood anxiety. However, the prevalence of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents, combined with the practical and psychological obstacles that often prevent families from accessing professional help, mean that alternative ways of reaching prospective clients must be explored. This pilot study aims to compare the relative efficacy of two different modes of delivering a family-focused, cognitive-behavioral intervention for children with an anxiety disorder. The two modalities compared were: a parent-delivered program (bibliotherapy) and a clinician-delivered program (individual therapy). Twenty-seven children aged between 7 and 14, together with their parents, were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions listed above. Results at post-treatment showed a significant improvement for children in both treatment conditions in terms of diagnostic status, number of diagnoses and severity of primary diagnosis at follow-up. Children in the bibliotherapy condition demonstrated a significant improvement over time in terms of child- and parent-reported anxiety levels. No differences were found between the two treatment conditions on any outcome measure. These results were maintained at 3- and 6-month follow-up. Although a pilot study, these data suggest that a bibliotherapy format of the intervention described may have potential merit. The implications for service del…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A pilot study demonstrated a significant improvement in anxiety symptoms over time with a home-focused bibliotherapy intervention for children with anxiety disorder.
“A pilot study explored a home-focused bibliotherapy intervention for children with anxiety disorder and demonstrated a significant improvement in anxiety symptoms over time.51”
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 42 · Cited by 45
- Authors
- Leong, J., Cobham, V. E., de Groot, J., & McDermott, B.
- Affiliations
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Mater Health Services (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Cobham, Vanessa Elise
- Venue
- European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
- Published
- 2009-01-22
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 231-239
- ISSN
- 1018-8827 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-165X
- OpenAlex
- W154426738
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 3.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ResearchOnline at James Cook University (James Cook University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- 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
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Therapy and Development
- Keywords
- childhood anxiety, cognitive behavioral therapy, bibliotherapy, parent-mediated intervention, family intervention, service delivery
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Anxiety Disorders, Bibliotherapy, Child, Family Therapy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Severity of Illness Index, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
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