ArticleAdministration and policy in mental health2024
Provider Adherence to Modular Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Children and Adolescents.
Article in Administration and policy in mental health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study explored predictors of community-based providers' adherence to MATCH, a modular cognitive behavioral therapy for children and adolescents. Provider-reported adherence to MATCH was measured using three increasingly strict criteria: (1) session content (whether the session covered MATCH content consistent with the client's target problem), (2) session content and sequencing (whether the session covered MATCH content in the expected sequence for the client's target problem), and (3) session content, sequencing, and participant (whether the session covered MATCH content in the expected sequence and with the expected participant(s) for the client's target problem). Session, client, provider, and organizational predictors of adherence to MATCH were assessed using multilevel modeling. Results revealed that nearly all providers delivered MATCH content that corresponded to the target problem, but only one-third of providers delivered MATCH content in the expected sequence and with the expected participant for the client's target problem. This difference underscores the need for nuanced adherence measurement to capture important implementation information that broad operationalizations of adherence miss. Regardless of the criteria used providers were most adherent to MATCH during sessions when clients presented with interfering comorbid mental health symptoms. This suggests that the design of MATCH, which offers flexibility and structured guidance to address comorbid mental health problems, may allow providers to personalize treatment to address interfering comorbidity symptoms while remaining adherent to evidence-based practices. Additional guidance for providers on managing other types of session interference (e.g., unexpected events) may improve treatment integrity in community settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.