No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: Statements about potentially effective components of interventions in child and youth care are hard to make because of a lack of a standardized instruments for classifying the most salient care characteristics. The aim of this study is to present an empirically developed taxonomy of care for youth (TOCFY) which is feasible for use in daily practice, including an explanation of the developmental process itself. Methods: The development procedure, comprising of different stages, contributed significantly to the foundation of the taxonomy. Results: The operational version consists of six domains: (1) contents of the intervention;(2) judicial context; (3) duration of the intervention; (4) intensity of the intervention; (5) intervention recipients; and (6) expertise of professionals. The terminologies used to describe treatment programs and the levels of classification were standardized for each organization participating in our study. By doing so, the feasibility and manageability of the taxonomic system in daily practice increased. Discussion: Using TOCFY in daily practice provides the opportunity to gather information on care and treatment characteristics within care organizations. The strength of TOCFY is that its framework can be extended to other care organizations within child and youth care. Replication of the findings of our study in other child and youth care settings is needed, because this study only covered one province in the Netherlands.

Objective: The Taxonomy of Care for Youth was developed to gather information about the care offered to children and adolescents with behavioral and emotional problems in various care settings. The aim was to determine similarities and differences in the content of care and thereby to classify the care offered to these children and youth within and across care organizations. Method: Interventions (N ¼ 56) offered in primary health care, child and youth care, and mental health care were assessed by using descriptors. Professionals scored the degree of applicability of these descriptors and interventions with similar descriptors were merged. Results: As a result, the interventions could be classified into 7 main types of support and the total number of interventions reduced to 27. Conclusion: The descriptors used in this study were able to classify the various kinds of care offered based on their content, thereby creating an overview of distinct interventions.