Symptom Persistence in Seriously Emotionally Disordered Children: Findings of a Two-Year Follow-up after Residential Treatment

Cuthbert, Rebecca; Pierre, Jeff St.; Stewart, Shannon L.; Cook, Steven; Johnson, Andrew M.; Leschied, Alan W.

doi:10.1007/s10566-010-9137-z

Cited by 22 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An additional gap can be seen in describing program models, where no more than a sentence or two is provided to describe the group care program that the youth received. Some overall descriptors of the intervention like ''positive peer culture approach'' (Eddy and Chamberlain 2000), ''structured behavioral milieu'' (Cuthbert et al 2010) and ''delivery of therapeutic services'' (Chamberlain et al 2007) are not very informative. The development of intervention manuals-a common characteristic of many mental health treatments in the last decade (Chorpita and Daleiden 2009)-has not become the norm in group care.…”

Section: Previous Efforts To Differentiate Group Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Group Care Programs: An Index of Reporting Standards

Lee

Barth

2011

Child Youth Care Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group care programs, while ubiquitous, are not clearly differentiated despite differences in the population served, size, auspices, and program activities, to name a few. Words like group care, residential care and residential treatment are often used interchangeably in policy, research and practice. This paper introduces reporting standards that can be used to promote the availability of descriptive information and build towards a nomenclature and classification system that reflects the variety within the service delivery system. These reporting standards were developed and vetted with input from several national group care scholars. An index of reporting standards has implications for state systems, accreditation and licensing groups, practitioners and researchers.

show abstract

Section: Previous Efforts To Differentiate Group Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Group Care Programs: An Index of Reporting Standards

Lee

Barth

2011

Child Youth Care Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Cuthbert et al . ). These youth also frequently face environmental and educational challenges, including high residential mobility and low educational achievement (Asarnow et al .…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Youth and parent perceptions of aftercare supports at discharge from residential care

Trout

Hoffman

Huscroft-D’Angelo

et al. 2014

Child & Family Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T RA C TWhile much is known about youth struggles after reintegration into the home and community settings following stays in out-of-home care, little is known about appropriate supports for aftercare, or parent (see Note 1) and youth perceptions during this critical transition period. This study seeks to begin to address these questions through surveys evaluating youth (n = 48) and parent (n = 48) perceptions of (i) transition planning, family preparedness and aftercare; (ii) youth preparedness for the transition period across major life domains (e.g. education, health care, relationships); and (iii) the importance of specific aftercare supports and services. Results indicate differences between youth and parents on perceptions of need for continued supports, likelihood of participation in aftercare programs; and youth preparedness for success in relationships, family and independent living domains. In contrast, similarities were found on youth and parent ratings regarding the importance of specific services and supports, with both groups indicating supports in education as most important and supports in mental health as least. Study limitations, future research and implications are provided.

show abstract

“…The BCFPI has been found useful and is appreciated by both parents and clinicians (5). Its approach makes BCFPI valuable for evaluation of treatment, and it has been used in numerous studies (8)(9)(10)(11).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of the Brief Child and Family Phone Interview by comparison with Longitudinal Expert All Data diagnoses in outpatients

Andersson

Bäckström

Ivarsson

et al. 2018

Scandinavian Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Brief Child and Family Phone Interview (BCFPI) is a standardized intake and follow-up interview used in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). Although it has shown good validity compared with other measures using parent reports, it has not yet been compared with diagnoses derived from a Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) procedure, which includes information from separate diagnostic interviews with parent(s) and child. The aim was to compare the BCFPI evaluation in an outpatient child and adolescent psychiatry setting with an evaluation derived from a LEAD procedure. Methods: At four Swedish outpatient CAMHS, 267 patients were interviewed at intake with the BCFPI. Within six weeks, patients and parents were interviewed separately with the 2009 version of the semi-structured Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-age Children, Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL) and parents completed the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). LEAD diagnoses were subsequently determined by two senior clinicians based on 1.2 years of clinical records including the K-SADS-PL and ensuing information from further assessments, psychological tests, information from teachers and other informants as well as treatment outcome. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders subscales from the CBCL and the subscales from the BCFPI were compared with LEAD diagnoses. These measured symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, separation anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Results: The criterion validity for BCFPI versus LEAD diagnoses was fair for oppositional defiant disorder (area under curve, 0.73), generalized anxiety disorder (0.73) and major depressive disorder (0.78), good for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (0.81) and conduct disorder (0.83), and excellent for separation anxiety disorder (0.90). The screening properties of BCFPI and CBCL were similar. Conclusion: The BCFPI is a concise and valid tool, performed along with the larger and more established CBCL, in screening for major psychiatric disorders. It is well suited as an intake interview in CAMHS.

show abstract

Symptom Persistence in Seriously Emotionally Disordered Children: Findings of a Two-Year Follow-up after Residential Treatment

Cited by 22 publications

References 40 publications

Defining Group Care Programs: An Index of Reporting Standards

Defining Group Care Programs: An Index of Reporting Standards

Youth and parent perceptions of aftercare supports at discharge from residential care

Validity of the Brief Child and Family Phone Interview by comparison with Longitudinal Expert All Data diagnoses in outpatients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About