↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive-behavioral treatment for antisocial behavior in youth in residential treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cognitive-behavioral treatment for antisocial behavior in youth in residential treatment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005650.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bengt-Åke Armelius, Tore Henning Andreassen

Abstract

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) appears to be effective in the treatment of antisocial behavior both in adolescents and adults. Treatment of antisocial behavior in youth in residential settings is a challenge since it usually involves more serious behavioral problems and takes place in a closed setting. The motivation for change is usually low and there is little possibility to address the maintenance of any behavioral changes following release. To investigate the effectiveness of CBT in reducing recidivism of adolescents placed in secure or non-secure residential settings. A secondary objective was to see if interventions that focus particularly on criminogenic needs are more effective than those with a more general focus on cognitions and behavior. We searched a number of databases including: CENTRAL 2005 (Issue 2), MEDLINE 1966 to May 2005, Sociological Abstracts 1963 to May 2005, ERIC 1966 to November 2004, Dissertation Abstracts International 1960s to 2005. We contacted experts in the field concerning current research. Both randomised controlled trials and studies with non-randomized comparison groups were included. Participants had to be young people aged 12-22 and placed in a residential setting for reasons of antisocial behavior. Two reviewers independently reviewed 93 titles and abstracts; 35 full-text reports were retrieved and data from 12 trials eligible for inclusion were extracted and entered into RevMan. Results were synthesized using a random effects model, due to the significant heterogeneity across included studies. Results are reported at 6, 12 and 24 months post-treatment, and presented in graphical (forest plots) form. Odds ratios are used throughout and intention-to-treat analyses were made with drop-outs imputed proportionally. Pooled estimates were weighted with inverse variance methods and 95% confidence intervals were used. The results for 12 months follow-up show that although single studies generally show no significant effects, the results for pooled data are clearly significant in favor of CBT compared to standard treatment with an odds ratio of 0,69. The reduction in recidivism is about 10% on the average. There is no evidence of effects after 6 or 24 months or when CBT is compared to alternative treatments. CBT seems to be a little more effective than standard treatment for youth in residential settings. The effects appear about one year after release, but there is no evidence of more long-term effects or that CBT is any better than alternative treatments.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 2%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 122 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 18%
Student > Master 23 18%
Researcher 21 17%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Unspecified 13 10%
Other 31 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 40 32%
Social Sciences 31 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 18%
Unspecified 17 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Other 8 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,245,910
of 12,712,180 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,159
of 10,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,850
of 253,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#143
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,712,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,408 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 253,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.