Evidence-based youth psychotherapies versus usual clinical care: A meta-analysis of direct comparisons

John R. Weisz, Amanda Doss, Kristin M. Hawley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

382 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In the debate over evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for youth, one question is central: Do EBTs produce better outcomes than the usual interventions employed in clinical care? The authors addressed this question through a meta-analysis of 32 randomized trials that directly compared EBTs with usual care. EBTs outperformed usual care. Effects fell within the small to medium range at posttreatment, increasing somewhat at follow-up. EBT superiority was not reduced by high levels of youth severity or by inclusion of minority youths. The findings underscore a need for improved study designs and detailed treatment descriptions. In the future, the EBT versus usual care genre can inform the search for the most effective interventions and guide treatment selection in clinical care.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)671-689
Number of pages19
JournalAmerican Psychologist
Volume61
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Psychotherapy
Meta-Analysis
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Children and adolescents
  • Evidence-based treatments
  • Meta-analysis
  • Psychotherapy
  • Treatment efficacy
  • Usual clinical care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Evidence-based youth psychotherapies versus usual clinical care : A meta-analysis of direct comparisons. / Weisz, John R.; Doss, Amanda; Hawley, Kristin M.

In: American Psychologist, Vol. 61, No. 7, 01.10.2006, p. 671-689.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{70ca3b9fe9a1423fb40362559db9c6fb,
title = "Evidence-based youth psychotherapies versus usual clinical care: A meta-analysis of direct comparisons",
abstract = "In the debate over evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for youth, one question is central: Do EBTs produce better outcomes than the usual interventions employed in clinical care? The authors addressed this question through a meta-analysis of 32 randomized trials that directly compared EBTs with usual care. EBTs outperformed usual care. Effects fell within the small to medium range at posttreatment, increasing somewhat at follow-up. EBT superiority was not reduced by high levels of youth severity or by inclusion of minority youths. The findings underscore a need for improved study designs and detailed treatment descriptions. In the future, the EBT versus usual care genre can inform the search for the most effective interventions and guide treatment selection in clinical care.",
keywords = "Children and adolescents, Evidence-based treatments, Meta-analysis, Psychotherapy, Treatment efficacy, Usual clinical care",
author = "Weisz, {John R.} and Amanda Doss and Hawley, {Kristin M.}",
year = "2006",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.671",
language = "English",
volume = "61",
pages = "671--689",
journal = "American Psychologist",
issn = "0003-066X",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evidence-based youth psychotherapies versus usual clinical care

T2 - A meta-analysis of direct comparisons

AU - Weisz, John R.

AU - Doss, Amanda

AU - Hawley, Kristin M.

PY - 2006/10/1

Y1 - 2006/10/1

N2 - In the debate over evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for youth, one question is central: Do EBTs produce better outcomes than the usual interventions employed in clinical care? The authors addressed this question through a meta-analysis of 32 randomized trials that directly compared EBTs with usual care. EBTs outperformed usual care. Effects fell within the small to medium range at posttreatment, increasing somewhat at follow-up. EBT superiority was not reduced by high levels of youth severity or by inclusion of minority youths. The findings underscore a need for improved study designs and detailed treatment descriptions. In the future, the EBT versus usual care genre can inform the search for the most effective interventions and guide treatment selection in clinical care.

AB - In the debate over evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for youth, one question is central: Do EBTs produce better outcomes than the usual interventions employed in clinical care? The authors addressed this question through a meta-analysis of 32 randomized trials that directly compared EBTs with usual care. EBTs outperformed usual care. Effects fell within the small to medium range at posttreatment, increasing somewhat at follow-up. EBT superiority was not reduced by high levels of youth severity or by inclusion of minority youths. The findings underscore a need for improved study designs and detailed treatment descriptions. In the future, the EBT versus usual care genre can inform the search for the most effective interventions and guide treatment selection in clinical care.

KW - Children and adolescents

KW - Evidence-based treatments

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Psychotherapy

KW - Treatment efficacy

KW - Usual clinical care

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33749631551&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33749631551&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.671

DO - 10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.671

M3 - Article

C2 - 17032068

AN - SCOPUS:33749631551

VL - 61

SP - 671

EP - 689

JO - American Psychologist

JF - American Psychologist

SN - 0003-066X

IS - 7

ER -