| Title |
Psychological Treatments for Mental Disorders in Children and Adolescents: A Review of the Evidence of Leading International Organizations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10567-018-0257-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mario Gálvez-Lara, Jorge Corpas, Eliana Moreno, José F. Venceslá, Araceli Sánchez-Raya, Juan A. Moriana |
| Abstract |
In recent decades, the evidence on psychological treatments for children and adolescents has increased considerably. Several organizations have proposed different criteria to evaluate the evidence of psychological treatment in this age group. The aim of this study was to analyze evidence-based treatments drawn from RCTs, reviews, meta-analyses, guides and lists provided by four leading international organizations. The institutions reviewed were the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (Division 53) of the American Psychological Association, Cochrane Collaboration and the Australian Psychological Society in relation to mental disorders in children and adolescents. A total of 137 treatments were analyzed for 17 mental disorders and compared to determine the level of agreement among the organizations. The results indicate that, in most cases, there is little agreement among organizations and that there are several discrepancies within certain disorders. These results require reflection on the meaning attributed to evidence-based treatments with regard to psychological treatments in children and adolescents. The possible reasons for these differences could be explained by a combination of different issues: the procedures or committees may be biased, different studies were reviewed, different criteria are used by the organizations or the reviews of existing evidence were conducted in different time periods. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 7 | 64% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 82% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 88 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 10% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Professor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 32 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 30 | 34% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 37 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,946,807
of 24,086,561 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
#151
of 381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,951
of 332,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,086,561 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 381 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,664 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.